Plenary

The next item therefore is questions to the Counsel General and Minister for the Constitution, and the first question is from Rhys ab Owen.

Thank you very much for the question.

My ministerial colleagues and I have made the Welsh Government's position on the devolution of justice very clear to this Lord Chancellor, his predecessors and many other UK Ministers, and most recently Lord Bellamy, the Under-Secretary for justice, this Monday. It does remain deeply disappointing that the UK Government will not seriously engage with this question.

Diolch yn fawr, Cwnsler Cyffredinol. We've had the tenth Lord Chancellor in 12 years; I think beforehand we had 10 in half a century. But the opinion polls consistently suggest that, after the next general election, there'll be a Labour Lord Chancellor in Westminster. As was highlighted yesterday, in the 2017 Labour Westminster manifesto, it supported full devolution of justice. In 2019 that commitment had disappeared. The recent Brown report recommends the devolution of youth justice and probation. Now, whilst I welcome any further devolution to Wales, the Thomas report made strong and persuasive arguments against piecemeal devolution. The recommendations of the Brown report will only shift the jagged edge slightly, and the underlying issues of the justice system in Wales, which is with the worst in western Europe, will still remain. Therefore, Cwnsler Cyffredinol, is the Welsh Government still committed to the full devolution of justice, and will you make your views clear to Labour in Westminster?

Well, what I can say is that the position of the Welsh Government remains the same. We support the recommendations of the Thomas commission, and we also support, specifically within that, the devolution of justice and the devolution, in particular, of criminal justice. What I can say is that the devolution of youth justice and probation will be very significant steps forward.

I think you have to be careful about taking out of context aspects of the Gordon Brown report, which of course is a report that was commissioned by the UK Labour Party. It does say within it, I think, some very, very important messages. Firstly, it says that:

'As a matter of principle, devolution to Wales should be constrained only by reserving those matters which are necessary to discharge the purposes of the UK as a union'.

It also says there is absolutely no reason why matters that are devolved in Scotland, including new powers proposed, could not also be devolved to Wales. And he specifically refers to the recommendation for the devolution of youth justice and probation. But I think the most—. In many ways, the most important part of this section of the report is that he also says

'that the Welsh government has established a Commission to examine various constitutional issues, and its work is ongoing. Once the report...is received, we expect a Labour Government to engage constructively with its recommendations.'

I think it is really important that that report recognises what we said very early on when we talked about the establishment of the independent commission, that it would be in this place that we would decide what the future of Wales should be, that it would be in this Senedd and for the people of Wales to decide what that should be. And whilst that commission is there, I think it's important that that report makes that deference to the fact that there is that commission, and the recommendations and views that the commission comes up with are ones that we as a Senedd will then consider. We'll decide ourselves what is important and we'll then aim to engage constructively for the devolution or for the changes and reforms that we consider are necessary in respect of Wales, based on that commission's recommendations.

I'm very interested to hear what you have to say on this, and I just want to raise with you the concerns that we've heard about the disjunctive nature of the criminal justice system at the moment. For example, when we had the legislative and constitutional committee, chaired by Huw Irranca-Davies, meeting with Lord Bellamy, he was highlighted the importance of the Visiting Mums project, as if this was something funded by UK Government, when in fact it's funded by the Welsh Government. Equally, we've had some concerns raised by evidence we've heard from the Magistrates' Association. We don't have any control over the Magistrates' Association, and the holes through which people in the criminal justice system fall, particularly women, where we are determined not to send people to prison unless it's absolutely necessary, indicate that we really have got to push hard on this one, because it's a completely dysfunctional situation at the moment.

Well, thank you for those comments, and I don't disagree with the points that you've made. Many of them are points that we've made very much within our 'Delivering Justice for Wales' paper, and of course the recent research by Cardiff University, the publication, The Welsh Criminal Justice System: On the Jagged Edge, I think is really important.

What is important in terms of the engagement that we do have with UK Government over the Thomas commission is of course that they are supportive and they've accepted the points about the disaggregation of data that we actually need to have the breakdown of data for Wales, because in order to formulate policy you actually need to know what is happening. I think we were all, weren't we, absolutely astonished and shocked, I think, by some of the data from Cardiff University, that per 10,000 of the population 14 in prison would be white and 79 would be from coloured or ethnic backgrounds. That is an absolutely shocking set of figures, and the disaggregation of information enables us to understand why that is, why we have a higher imprisonment of Welsh citizens within the justice system, and things that we need to understand. And it goes exactly into the reasoning as to why we want the devolution of justice. What is important, I think, about the Gordon Brown report—and of course I will look forward to, eventually, the full report from our own independent commission—is that there are no doors closed.

Thank you for the question. I wrote to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, Lord Bellamy, in August of this year, to call for full disclosure from public bodies during public inquiries or criminal proceedings. I believe that a Hillsborough law would benefit the demand for a public inquiry into events at Orgreave.

Can I thank the Counsel General for that answer and his commitment to a Hillsborough law, something that I've used my time in questions to the Counsel General to highlight, and highlight other areas of injustice? Because it is far too hard for working-class people in the United Kingdom and in Wales to access justice. The Orgreave miners, including many from Wales, were victims of a gross injustice. On the day, many were victims of brutal and sustained unlawful assault, and what happened subsequently is a real stain on the British legal system. Counsel General, these former miners deserve justice, and it behoves all of us who care about justice to keep raising this matter. Can I seek your assurance that you, as Counsel General, and Welsh Government Ministers, will take every opportunity you have to raise this with UK Government counterparts and take every opportunity to speak out and keep the flame for justice for Orgreave burning?

I thank you very much for that and for raising that. I don't know whether you're aware; I was of course one of the lawyers in the Orgreave trial and riot cases, in which we actually obtained an absolute non-committal, a 'not guilty', in respect of all 90 of the cases of persons that I was involved in, and we then actually took civil action against the police for malicious prosecution and wrongful arrest. All of those civil actions were completely successful. What was important about them and what is important about this issue is that it relates to the exercise of power by the state. And my belief is that there is evidence and there will be documentation that is yet to be disclosed that will show that the decisions taken at Orgreave—and, of course, it relates to other matters that we're aware of with regard to Hillsborough, but those matters, those decisions—were actually taken at the very highest level, at prime ministerial level. That is my belief in that, and that is my belief as to why an inquiry won't be carried out by this Government. I am very pleased that the next Labour Government has given a commitment that it will carry out an inquiry into Orgreave, that those documents will be disclosed, not because it's something of raking over history, something that happened a long time ago, but, with all abuses of power that occur by a state, it's important that those are made public and that those are dealt with in the proper way.

Questions now from the party spokespeople. The Conservative spokesperson, Mark Isherwood.

Diolch, Llywydd. Building on what you've said in your previous responses, although we cannot support Gordon Brown's constitutional reform recommendations announced by the UK Labour Party on Monday in their entirety, there are elements that, in our view, merit consideration, including proposals to ensure that Wales has a permanent voice, not just in the House of Commons, but in the second Chamber, if this would lead to proper bicameral scrutiny of devolved legislation; proposals to seek greater co-operation between the four UK Governments to deal with shared problems, such as pandemics and pollution; and proposals to enhance the role of Members of this Senedd so that they could enjoy the same privileges and protections as Members of Parliament in relation to statements made in their proceedings.

We also note the statement by Labour's Lord Blunkett that Sir Keir Starmer's plans for an elected second Chamber risk US-style gridlock and should not be a priority, and that, despite the First Minister's statement here last week, the transfer of responsibility for justice matters, which is the policy of his Government, was contained in the Labour manifesto in the 2017 and 2019 UK general elections, UK Labour now only proposes to devolve powers over youth justice and the probation services to the Welsh Government. How do you therefore respond to this, and do you agree—I think I can judge the answer; it's a rhetorical question—but do you agree that this now puts to bed the wider devolution of justice and policing to Wales?

Thank you for the question and you covered some very interesting points within there. And I'm very pleased, and I think we commonly recognise, don't we, the importance of changes that have occurred: the fact that we are a primary law legislature and the importance that we actually have a permanent, recognised place within the Supreme Court. I think the old arguments in terms of jurisdiction are actually outdated.

I think where you have parliaments that are legislatures and you have matters that are constitutional, and the Supreme Court plays a constitutional function, it is absolutely right that Wales should be specifically represented. I think this is being represented almost through the back door by ensuring that there is a Welsh judge there, and I'm very pleased that Lord David Lloyd-Jones is there in the Supreme Court—a Welsh-speaking Supreme Court judge; the first one ever. But I think it is important that that becomes something that is formalised and becomes part of our structures, so that, as with Scotland, as with Northern Ireland, and as with England, there is a specific Welsh judge in the Supreme Court. So, I'm very pleased we made those. And also, the recognitions in terms of the importance of co-operation and inter-governmental improvements. The importance, I think, of the recommendation within the Gordon Brown report in terms of the establishment of an irrefutable structure in respect of Sewel is something that we've long argued for. In whatever format, it would be something that would be a significant step forward.

But I don't agree with what you say in terms of justice. The Gordon Brown report doesn't close any particular doors; it is a report that makes recommendations to the UK Labour Party as a whole, but it is one that gives very specific reference. The bits I read out earlier, I think, are very, very clear that it is deferring to the independent commission and that, when that commission has reported, it calls for constructive engagement. And the report makes it absolutely clear that there are no doors closed and that the basis of further devolution should be based on subsidiarity: that is, it is only those items that are necessary in terms of interdependent governance within the UK as a whole that should be dealt with by UK Government, and the rest should be devolved. So, it does represent a very significant transfer and I don't believe it says what you're suggesting at all about justice, and I am confident in the inevitable devolution of justice to Wales.

Well, thank you. It's my understanding that there are voices in senior UK Labour leadership who do grasp the east-west axis of crime and criminal justice across the Wales-England border and recognise that full devolution accordingly could be counterproductive.

However, responsibilities you hold as Counsel General include matters relating to legislation passed by the Senedd and accessibility of Welsh law. As you will be aware, provided that a Member of the Senedd is acting within the expectations of a constituent, the Member has a legal basis to request information from a public body when representing the constituent. Section 24 of the Data Protection Act 2018 allows an elected representative to receive information from another data controller, including a local authority, in relation to an individual for the purpose of a casework matter where they're acting with authority. However, after I wrote to—I won't name it—a north Wales local authority regarding social services matters on behalf of neurodiverse parents, the response from the local authority's social services chief officer included, 'These appear to be issues raised by you as a Member of the Senedd about an individual case, and therefore outside of the parameters we would disclose to a third party.'

What action can you therefore take within your remit to ensure that senior officers in such local authorities understand that responses regarding individual cases should be provided by council departments when replying to correspondence sent by a Member of the Senedd—this Welsh Parliament—in a representative capacity?

Well, obviously, we do want the maximum of co-operation between Members of the Senedd and any public bodies, and, indeed, private bodies as well, where they reflect upon Senedd matters and Senedd duties and constituency duties. I think the only way I can refer you, in terms of the matter that you raised and of which I have no specific knowledge, is that the rights and entitlements are set out in the Data Protection Act. Where an individual is dissatisfied with the response they've had to a Freedom of Information Act 2000 request, there is a process where it can be referred to the data protection commissioner, who will then basically consider the legal position on that and whether that is something that should or should not be disclosed. And I think that is the appropriate course of action that should be being taken there.

Thank you. I did respond accordingly. But of course, this wasn't a freedom of information request, I was making representations—as we all do—on a neutral basis, representing my constituents at their request, and with their written authority, so it was an alarming response. And in that context, as I trust you're also aware, the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014, Part 10, code of practice, relating to advocacy, states that local authorities, when exercising their social services functions, must act in accordance with the requirements contained in this code, and that it is open to any individual to exercise choice and to invite any advocate to support them in expressing their views, wishes and feelings. However, after an autistic adult recently asked me to attend a meeting with the same local authority, as an advocate for her—as I've done scores of times with constituents and public bodies; I'm sure you have also—she received a message from the local authority this weekend, stating, 'I'm not able to invite Mark to the meeting as I've been informed by higher management that if Mark has any issues regarding yourself or your son, he needs to access customer services.'

I hope you'll agree that these and other similar responses by a local authority's senior management are serious matters, with potentially damaging repercussions. So, again, what action can you take to ensure that repeat offenders, such as this local authority, both understand and operate within both UK and Welsh law?

Thank you for that. In respect of the particular circumstances that you raise, I think those are ones that could and probably should be referred to the Minister, who I'm sure would respond. There is of course another course of action, in terms of reference to the ombudsman, in terms of the way in which the local authority that you refer to has acted. I just think it would be improper for me, on something that I have no direct knowledge of, to actually give any specific further comment than that.

The Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Peredur Owen Griffiths.

Diolch, Llywydd. My first question this afternoon is about a matter in my region causing consternation for constituents, but has a national implication. The application of Merthyr (South Wales) Ltd to continue coal extraction operations at the Ffos-y-Frân mine, beyond the original deadline, and mine for another three years, has caused considerable distress to residents due to concerns over air quality and noise pollution. The site is located just meters away from homes, schools and playgrounds. Can the Counsel General confirm whether article 67, section 26A of the Coal Industry Act 1994 gives Welsh Ministers the ultimate responsibility for approving bids for coal mining operations in Wales? Would the Counsel General also confirm whether the December 2018 notification direction obliges councillors to refer bids on coal or petroleum operations to Welsh Ministers? And based on these pieces of legislation, would the Counsel General give a view on whether the Welsh Government is able to refuse the application by Merthyr (South Wales) Ltd to continue coal extraction operations at the Ffos-y-Frân site?

Thank you for raising that. You raise some very specific matters that relate to, obviously, planning matters and the powers of Welsh Government. And of course, there are issues that have been raised, for example, in respect of another coal extraction area, and the issues relate, often, to what powers the Welsh Government has, and whether it's in respect of existing planning permissions that have been given or whether it relates to new planning applications, and so on. Look, in respect of the circumstances there, the detail you asked for is not something I can give you today; I think, if you write to me separately, if there are matters I can reply to you specifically on, I will happily do so. But I think it would be improper without knowing the background to it, knowing what stage it might be in the planning system, what other issues there might be, as to whether I can actually respond and in what detail I can respond to you on.

Thank you, Counsel General, and I'll certainly write to you on that.

Since the last round of Counsel General's questions, we have received the verdict of the Supreme Court that the Scottish Parliament does not have the power to legislate for a referendum. Does the Counsel General concur with the remarks made by the First Minister in the summer that there is an unambiguous moral and political case for allowing Scotland to hold an independence referendum? And do you also agree that every nation has a right to self-determination, if that is the democratic wish of the people? Finally, what is the Counsel General's assessment of the impact of sections 60 and 64 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 on the ability of Welsh Government to hold an independence referendum?

Well, thank you again for a number of important questions that are there. Can I just say, firstly, in terms of the general principle of self-determination? I think that's one that the First Minister and I and others have made clear in the past, that nations do have the right to self-determination. Our position in terms of referenda and what would happen with a Government that had a majority for a referendum is set out in 'Reforming our Union', and I think it was referred to very specifically in First Minister's questions the previous week. So, that position remains the Welsh Government's position, and is absolutely clear.

In a recent series of lectures—one by Professor Ciaran Martin that I attended, of course—there was the significant constitutional issue raised in terms of what the routes should be for a country, for a Government that has a mandate, and that is, undoubtedly, part of the ongoing constitutional debate. In terms of the Supreme Court judgment, I do have, I think, two questions that are about to come that are specifically on that, so, if you don't mind, I'll refer to that specifically when those questions actually arise.

But in terms of the point that Professor Emyr Lewis has raised, I've noted his comments with interest. He is, of course, correct to point out the differences that do exist between the Scottish settlement and the Welsh Ministers' executive powers. I would also say that there are, of course, significant differences between the powers of the Lord Advocate—my counterpart in Scotland—and their powers to be able to refer on constitutional matters, a power that is not a power that I specifically have in the Government of Wales Act. He also points out, of course, that these matters are incredibly complicated.

My own very preliminary view on it—and, of course, we're still giving thought to some of these issues as they arise—is I think it's unlikely, in respect of section 60, section 62 and section 64, that they would actually legitimise the holding of a poll that asked specifically the sort of question that the Scottish Government put in their Bill, which clearly does relate to a reserved matter in terms of the constitution of the United Kingdom. The Supreme Court was very clear on that particular point. Any poll that we would have, I think, would need to relate to intra vires powers—powers the Welsh Government or the Senedd actually have. And, of course, in many ways, we've exercised those powers by the establishment of the independent commission, which looks broadly at the well-being of Wales within a constitutional context.

Thank you, Llywydd. I understand that you've agreed to group questions 3 and 5, but if I could follow on from my colleague Peredur with his question—

You should ask the question on the order paper. You can read your question—

I will do that, therefore.

It's okay.

Thank you for the question. The judgment was specific to the situation in Scotland. I do not consider that it will have any implications for the interpretation of the Welsh settlement. The Supreme Court was very clear that it was not departing from its previous approach to the consideration of such issues.

Thank you for that response. Well, back in March 2021, the First Minister said—and I'm going to quote in English:

'We have to demonstrate to people how we can recraft the UK in a way that recognises it as a voluntary association of four nations, in which we choose to pool our sovereignty for common purposes and for common benefits.'

Those were the words of Mark Drakeford. So, following the Supreme Court that stated that Scotland cannot legislate to hold a referendum on its own constitutional future, and that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the leader of the opposition there, Keir Starmer, have declared that they won't allow Scotland to hold an independence referendum, does the Counsel General believe that the UK is a voluntary association of four nations, and what is the Government here doing to demonstrate to people how it's possible to redraw the UK in a way that shows that it is a voluntary association?

Thank you. You do raise an important constitutional point. And it's very interesting, in Gordon Brown's report, that he very specifically describes the United Kingdom as an association of nations, so in recognition of the make-up of that. That is certainly my belief, as to what the real position is, because, if you have a parliament that elects people, that has a mandate from an election, from the people, then sovereignty cannot be anything other than shared. The point, I think, that we would make is, of course, that we have a constitution that is outdated and is dysfunctional, and that is why, I think, we are having all these constitutional debates, because, as the interim report of the independent commission, who published their report today, has said, what exists at the moment is not working—the status quo is not working. That, in fact, is something that's been repeated consistently by the inter-parliamentary group, which I previously attended and, I think, the Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee now attends. On the numerous occasions I was there, the statements were put out, and these were cross-party statements that, basically, the arrangements are not working and there is a need for substantial reform. I think there was a need for a very, very radical reform. I'm considering very carefully the independent commission's interim report, but I'm also considering very carefully other reports, other commentary that is being made, but including the report from Gordon Brown, which does set out a very, very radical critique of the current system, that says very clearly that the status quo does not work, and puts forward a series of principles and proposals in respect of radical reform, one of which is, in fact, the abolition of the House of Lords and the replacement of it. I think there is much in those principles that warrants very serious consideration, and I'm hoping to be able to make an oral statement to this Senedd in January, where we will have the opportunity to actually debate and consider, I think, substantively a lot of these important issues. It's not about the constitution, per se, but the constitution is how power is exercised. It is what affects the lives of people day in, day out. It's important to the quality of life of the people of Wales, and that's why it's important to us, and why we have the commission and why we are having these discussions.

As Mabon said, questions 3 and 5 have been grouped. Janet Finch-Saunders.

Diolch, Llywydd. Of course, my original question was what legal advice has the Counsel General provided to the Welsh Government following the Supreme Court ruling that the Scottish Parliament does not have the power to legislate for a referendum on Scottish independence. Now, this outcome has huge constitutional significance for Scotland and Wales, I believe. It essentially means that Wales cannot hold an independence referendum without Westminster approval. Indeed, as Professor Aileen McHarg has stated, the union and the UK Parliament are also reserved under the Government of Wales Act 2006, and the approach to whether a Bill relates to reserved matters is the same.

Every time the independence question has been put to the people of Wales, and it was, most recently, in the 2021 election last year, the party that made those offers came a distant third. The people of Wales have spoken with one voice, saying they want to remain in a strong United Kingdom. So, do you agree with me that, unlike Plaid Cymru, who continue to speak about further devolution and independence on almost a weekly basis, no further resources and time should be wasted on this constitutional question, and that we should now be focusing on using Welsh Government and the parliamentary resources therein on making the best of the powers that we do have? In other words, sorting out our failing health service, sorting out the low standards in education—

Janet, you need to finish now, please.

—sorting out our infrastructure, our transport. I could go on and on and on, but he won't let me.

No. [Laughter.]

Would you not agree with me that we need—

Thank you, Janet.

—to start concentrating on the issues—

Thank you.

—that face the people of Wales and less on this vanity project for Plaid Cymru?

Well, I believe we are attending to the issues that affect the people of Wales. And you're absolutely right, in terms of your interpretation of what the Supreme Court judgment means with regard to the carrying out of a referendum under the referendums legislation. Where I think you're wrong, though, is in saying that that therefore means that everything is fine and there aren't major constitutional problems and constitutional reform issues that need to be addressed. The purpose of looking at constitutional reform is, firstly, when it is very clear and recognised across parties, by very senior people in all political parties and by many other commentators and members of the public as well, that what we have at the moment is not working, it is not adequate, it is outdated and it needs reform. The reason why these matters are important and why we need to attend to them is because, ultimately, our constitution, our powers and the way in which Government operates are about considering those, about how we can do things better, and about how we can change people's lives for the better. That is governed—[Interruption.]

I'm sorry to hear you respond in that way to what I've just said, because that is why we're having these discussions—that is why they are important. If you thought that discussing issues around constitution is not important, then we wouldn't have the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, we wouldn't have the retained EU law Bill, we would also not have the Bill of Rights legislation that is being proposed, and we would not be consistently talking about the issues that have emerged over the last six years with regard to Brexit. Those are all constitutional matters and they do impact on people's lives. What we are doing is looking at the way in which our relationship with the rest of the UK works, but also how we exercise our powers, how we obtain the powers that we need in order to deliver on the mandates that we get from the people of Wales, how we improve our governance, and how we improve the engagement of the people of Wales within our politics.

Thank you very much for the question. 'Delivering Justice for Wales' sets out our intention to take forward reform to create a modernised tribunal system for Wales. We are shaping detailed proposals for reform, drawing on the evidence base for change and our conversations with those affected by the reform agenda.

Thank you very much, Counsel General. Many people say that there is no justice jurisdiction in Wales. Well, that's not true. There is a small justice jurisdiction in Wales, which is through the tribunals system. Given that it's a year since the publication of the Law Commission's report on how to improve the Welsh tribunals, and given it's entirely within the powers of the Welsh Government to do that and to help a great number of users of the tribunals, could you now, after a year, provide a definitive timetable as to when we will see the new structure for the tribunals, and when we will see, for the first time in centuries, the first appeals system in Wales? Thank you very much.

Firstly, thank you. There is obviously work that is under way in respect of the policy work and the legislative work with regard to the recommendations of the Law Commission in respect of tribunals. With regard to the point you raise on jurisdiction, I think there's always been a rather simplistic analysis of jurisdictions as to what a jurisdiction actually is in practice compared to what it is said to be. Because, yes, tribunals are very a significant court of administrative justice, and we look forward to legislation, and my intention will be to carry on that work. There will be an announcement in due course in respect of legislation and a timetable with regard to the creation of a first-tier tribunal, but, equally so, the creation of an appellate process for that. Any administrative court needs to have an appeals system, and this would be the creation of an appeals system. I think it would be a very significant part of the development of the devolution of justice as a whole.

Of course, there are other areas as well. I, of course, have to authorise prosecutions under Welsh law. I think that is part of our jurisdiction—that is part of our judicial process. I think, when the youth justice and probation is devolved, that will be yet a further extension, and, in due course, there will be further constructive discussions over the further devolution of the justice system.

Question 5 was grouped with question 3. Question 6, Sarah Murphy.

Thank you. I have regular meetings with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, Lord Bellamy. I have made, and will continue to make, the case for the devolution of youth justice to Wales during these discussions.

Counsel General, thank you for your update on this. I recently met with Professor Kevin Haines and Professor Jonathan Wynne Evans, two pioneering experts for youth justice, who talked to me about how, in Wales, our approach is children first and offenders second, and they actually called this way back in 2013 the 'dragonisation' of youth justice. And this is all about making sure that the child is first and then the offence is focused on second. Evidence shows that promoting the welfare of children and young people reduces the risk of offending and reoffending, and doing so protects the public as well. So, it's incredibly timely to see that the devolution of justice was one of the recommendations of the recent Gordon Brown report. I'm aware that this is a matter that the Counsel General is also in discussions with UK Government on, and could we have an update on those discussions and their significance for the devolution of youth justice and probation to Wales, please?

Thank you for the question, and it is a really important area, and I'm as pleased as you are about the very specific focus on youth justice, because that is the most glaring area where there is such a jagged edge. Youth justice, whilst it remains non-devolved, devolved services, nevertheless, such as housing, education and healthcare, do play such a fundamental role in diverting young people away from the criminal justice system in Wales, and, as you say, they are key to enabling prevention and early intervention.

Of course, we have the youth justice blueprint for Wales that was published in July 2009. That sets out our vision for youth justice in Wales as agreed with the UK Government, which does take a children first approach, and this means working in a sort of child-centred rather than a service-focused way with, I think, a focus on trauma-informed practices, preventing children coming into contact with the justice system and meeting the individual needs of children within the justice system. That is why it is so important to us.

I know the Minister, my colleague the Minister for Social Justice, raises this on every occasion at every ministerial opportunity they have. I also raise it, and in the context of the devolution of justice, and as we did jointly within the 'Delivering Justice for Wales' paper. So, I raised it, as I said, with Lord Bellamy yesterday. I'm meeting tomorrow with the president of the Law Society for the whole of the United Kingdom, and I'll be raising that again, because having that support from the legal profession, from those who practice within that area who are experts, is, I think, vitally important and important in people's understanding of why this is so important to us, and why it must happen, and why I'm convinced that it actually will happen.

Thank you very much for the question. Primary legislation that can be made in Wales should be made in Wales. There may be occasions when it is sensible and advantageous for provision within the Senedd’s legislative competence to be made in UK parliamentary Bills, but this must always be with the Senedd’s consent.

I thank the Counsel General for that response. I agree with your opening sentence: that legislation for Wales should be made in Wales, and there should be a full stop there. I've been an elected Member of this Senedd for 18 months now, but already—and it pains me to say this—I am losing confidence in the devolution process as it's currently being implemented here at the moment. It is entirely clear to me that the settlement we have is entirely unacceptable.

As a member of the Local Government and Housing Committee, we've received a number of LCMs, and then a supplementary LCM, a second supplementary LCM, a third and so on and so forth. These LCMs relate to legislation for England that have an influence on Wales, but there's very little time available for us to scrutinise these. This is legislation that's going to impact upon the lives of the people of Wales, but we have some quarter of an hour here and there to scrutinise and to ask questions, never mind the fact that the people of Wales have no input whatsoever. It's entirely unacceptable, and we cannot continue to operate in this way. It's a perfect recipe for poor legislation. So, in the absence of independence for our nation, we must have a clear devolution settlement, and England must also have its own Parliament with clear separation between who is responsible for what, with no ambiguity. Does the Counsel General therefore share my frustration, and what steps is this Government taking to resolve the situation?

Thank you for that. Of course, this is something I've commented on on a very regular basis before the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee and in questions in this Senedd, because the effective engagement by UK Government, Welsh Government and devolved Governments over legislation is fundamentally important. The failure of that to operate as it should and in accordance with the devolution memoranda and so on is one of the biggest obstacles to having an efficient, effective and scrutinisable legislative process. When information is not shared, when drafting is not shared in good time, it not only creates considerable pressure on those who then have to analyse and understand it, it also is, in my view, an absolutely enormous waste of resources that could well be used in other ways.

We have been pressing for a more consistent and more effective system of engagement. We've had promises, of course, and we get the assurances that that will happen. Of course, we do have a new inter-governmental arrangement that is still not properly up and running, but that may improve the situation. But I believe that there is a need for more substantive constitutional reform. I think that constitutional reform has to include the justiciability in one way or another of Sewel, the entrenchment of Sewel, in a way, because many of the problems that emerge through these processes are, of course, Sewel-related ones.

In terms of the LCM process, of course, we don't have any significant control over that, because we have to operate in accordance with Standing Orders when legislation arises. If it impacts on the Senedd, or on the functions of Welsh Ministers, then, of course, it has to be considered with regard to its impact on this place, but also in terms of the exercise of our powers and whether we should give consent to any of those items. That, obviously, involves a very tortuous process of negotiations and discussions over legislative amendments and so on, a back-and-forth process. It is wholly inefficient. It is a whole waste of resources in the way these things are actually done.

Again, I'm sorry I keep referring to it, but I was very impressed with some of the recommendations and analysis that appear in the Gordon Brown report, which actually would give that justiciable status to Sewel, but would also create a specific constitutional structure in terms of inter-governmental relations with a justiciable disputes procedure. If that existed, that would be a very significant step forward in dealing with the points you raised. There was nothing new, in fact, in those things—these are things we've been saying in various forms for quite some time—but they are things that need to be addressed, and until they are addressed, the dysfunctional structure we have at the moment will continue.

Finally, question 8, Huw Irranca-Davies.

The cost-of-living crisis means that it is vital that legal advice is accessible to safeguard everyone’s rights, yet the UK Government has eroded justice to such an extent that the accessibility and the affordability of civil justice in the United Kingdom is now below the global average of the World Justice Project Rule of Law Index.

Earlier this year, Counsel General, you will know that—it seems like two or three Prime Ministers ago now, in fact—the committee that I chair actually carried out a stakeholder engagement exercise on access to justice to Wales. One of the points that came out on that was the well-known impact of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 and the effect that has had of diminishing access to legal aid. Despite what was welcomed by stakeholders in terms the investment of the Welsh Government, it also picked up on the impact of the reduction in access to courts and tribunals, and the geographic disparities that we have in Wales as well denying access to justice. It also picked up on the accessibility of Welsh law and the need to have clarity in Welsh law, particularly in areas that were regarded as progressive—on aspects of social law and so on. Can I just briefly ask him—? One of the respondents said to us:

'This is the problem with us not having a devolved legal system...the trouble is, legal aid is controlled by the Ministry of Justice in London'.

And this is a direct quote from a practitioner:

'they don’t care about what goes on in Wales frankly...and in actual fact, sometimes legal aid is refused on grounds which are not relevant to Wales'.

Counsel General, do you agree with me that these issues will continue to cause scars within Wales on society at this jagged edge of justice, and that, frankly, ignoring this will not make it go away?

I do agree with you. The Thomas commission recommended the devolution of justice. I've made many comments in the past about the failures over many decades of the approach to legal aid and its importance in the empowerment of people. And, of course, the recent World Justice Project Rule of Law Index, I think, on average, put the United Kingdom now at fifteenth in the world, but when it came to access to and the affordability of civil justice, the United Kingdom was ranked eighty-ninth out of 140 countries, putting us behind the Russian Federation, Romania, Belarus, El Salvador, Paraguay, Botswana, Côte d'Ivoire and many other countries. That is a mark of shame that the Government has.

What I find very, very difficult, of course, is that we now have an Under-Secretary for justice, Lord Bellamy, who has been very respectful and has been very engaging—he was visiting here yesterday; he gave evidence to your committee—but then we also have a Lord Chancellor who has totally trashed big chunks of and key elements to the Bellamy report on the review of legal aid, to such an extent—. I'll just quote this comment from the Law Society in respect of the decision just the other day by Dominic Raab. It says:

'Numbers of duty solicitors and criminal legal aid firms continue to fall at an alarming rate—with several police station schemes on the verge of collapse.'

We know that in our Valleys, our advice deserts.

'Access to justice—including the fundamental right to representation at the police station—is in serious peril and the government is ignoring the threat.'

It says the reckless decision is

'likely to prove to be a fatal blow to a criminal justice system that used to be the envy of the world.'

I very much endorse that particular analysis. The £11 million that we've put into our single advice fund is a vital cog in at least giving some representation to the people who most need that access, but it is not a substitute for a properly funded access-to-justice system.

I thank the Counsel General.

Item 3 is questions to the Senedd Commission. The first question is from Heledd Fychan, and will be answered by Joyce Watson.

I thank you for the question. The Senedd Commission strives to be an exemplar in the delivery of its dignity and respect policies and actions. I am pleased to confirm that, further to the excellent work by trade union officials, the Commission has agreed to provide free period products on the Senedd estate for anyone who needs them, with effect from 2 December, to promote period dignity across Wales and act as an exemplar for other organisations. Those products are available within all the toilets on the Senedd estate, including signage to promote that service.

Thank you very much. I have to admit, it's great to see the products available in the toilets since the beginning of this week. I wanted to ask as well, when will the vending machines be removed from the toilets? Because that is a mixed message, given that we still have the vending machines in the toilets. Will we have more permanent signage? Because I understand that these are temporary signs. I understand that this is a new issue, but, in order to ensure that this is a permanent development, is it a policy that has been confirmed? Finally, how will the fact that these products are available be communicated to people who visit the estate in terms of updating the website and so forth? Because it's extremely important that all visitors know that this is available. We need to do more to celebrate and promote this, in the same way that the Parliament in Scotland does.

I absolutely agree with what you're saying. I'm sure that the message has been heard about updating the website to make sure. The 39 vending machines that you refer to will be removed. They cost £110 per annum each, and the total is £4,290 per year. There was a cost of £1 per box of products, which, of course, is way outside what you would pay anywhere in a shop. Those vending machines, as I've just said, are now being replaced with free sanitary products in all of the toilets. The estimated cost of doing that is around £3,000 per annum, based on what Scotland has done, so we've put a budget provision to that end in place. I will take on board very much what you say about making sure that everybody, not just us here, knows of that availability and that we have toilets that treat people with dignity and respect. We must make sure that they know about that.

I have agreed to the grouping of questions 1 and 2. Jack Sargeant.

Diolch, Deputy Presiding Officer, and thanks for agreeing to group the questions. Commissioner, I thank you for your response to Heledd Fychan. The reason I tabled this question was following a conversation I had with a staff member. They approached me to ask whether I had a £1 coin to use in a vending machine in Tŷ Hywel. I didn't—not many people do, these days. She explained to me how frustrating and disruptive to her day it could be when a basic necessity was not easy to access. So, I'm glad, now, since these questions have been tabled last week, we are in a position where free sanitary products are available.

Can I ask the Commissioner—I thank the Commissioner for the work she's done on this—two things? Is this a permanent fixture in the Senedd, in the Welsh Parliament? Can I also ask you and the Commission to give consideration to providing environmentally friendly sanitary products to staff in the future?

Again, I thank you, Jack, for your interest in all things equality. There were two questions. Is it permanent? I believe that it is permanent. In terms of sustainable products, you will find that there's a mix of products already out there in our facilities. The aim is to test those, to see the use and to move into that space of 100 per cent sustainability in our products, which, of course, is in line with our wider policy on moving to environmental sustainability in all that we do.

Question 3 will be answered by Janet Finch-Saunders. I call on Jenny Rathbone.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd, and thank you again to my colleague Jenny Rathbone, because this is not the first time—it's fair to say that you are very proactive on making sure that we do reduce our energy on this estate. I’m pleased to confirm that the Commission has agreed to implement a range of additional energy saving measures on the Senedd estate to support its 2030 carbon neutral strategy and in response to rising energy and utility costs. These include reducing the heating setpoint across the estate by 1 degree centigrade to 20 degrees centigrade; switching off the heating in lift lobbies and in areas that are unused on some days, such as Siambr Hywel; switching off heating to areas that have low or no occupancy on some days, in both Commission staff areas and Welsh Government areas; and encouraging those staff to use smaller heated areas. Changes have also been made to building operational time schedules at the start and end of days where applicable. It is estimated that these changes will enable a 15 per cent energy saving. The Commission is obviously keeping this issue under constant review, and I have more notes on it if the Member would like me to circulate these notes to you, as to greater detail in terms of everything that's happening on this estate.

Thank you, Janet Finch-Saunders, for your response. I think it's really important that we are seen to be doing what we ask other people to do. So, I think there's much more progress being made on making the electric lights only turn on when we actually need them, and I have noticed that we're not now heating parts of the estate where we're not actually needing to sit or have a meeting. Many of our staff are actually not turning on their heating at home, because I had a conversation on this only this morning, about everyone being with a blanket on them, because so many people are terrified of turning on the heating.

So it's great to see that you hope that you're going to make a 15 per cent energy saving. What I would really like, in due course, would be to capture the energy saved between December and February, which are the coldest months, compared with December to February last year. It won't necessarily be a financial saving, but hopefully it will be an energy saving.

As I say, there are a lot of positives as to what everybody's doing here. What we say, though—as well as these measures being introduced, it's down to all of us as building users to play our part in assisting with energy-saving measures. I take the point that you said about January and February, because they are, I think, for everyone who budgets for a household, the critical times. Members themselves can adjust the heating and cooling set points in their offices to further reduce energy and utility usage, and they can also ensure that equipment in their offices is turned off when not in use. We already have, as a Senedd, a number of systems that are controlled by movement sensors—for example, in office areas, lights will automatically switch off when movement is not detected—and similarly, in dining rooms, air conditioning will switch off when movement is not detected. This, of course, all helps to play a significant role in ensuring that energy is not wasted in unoccupied areas. These changes have been communicated and agreed with a range of stakeholders, including chiefs of staff, us as Commissioners, trade unions and networks, and information about these changes has been communicated on the intranet.

As the Commissioner for sustainability, it's important that we make real certain that it's not just the fact about the energy and our climate and carbon objectives; it is about cost as well, because, at the end of the day, when people, as you rightly say, are frightened to put the heating on at home, it would look really bad if we were wasting energy to any degree here. So I can assure you that I'm working with the department to ensure that we run the Senedd estate in the most efficient way possible. Thank you.

And finally, question 4 will be answered by Ken Skates, and I call Huw Irranca-Davies to ask his question.

I'm pleased to say that excellent progress has been made on the implementation of a salary sacrifice scheme for electric vehicles for Members, for Members' staff and also for Commission staff. The executive board has given in-principle approval of the scheme, following detailed background work, and final arrangements are now under way to set up the necessary systems and processes within the Senedd and with the scheme operator. I'm pleased to say that we anticipate that these are going to be finalised very soon in readiness for the scheme to be launched next month. Implementation of the scheme will support, of course, the Commission's 2030 carbon-neutral strategy and sustainable travel targets.

That's really excellent news, and it's good to hear that it's coming forward very soon indeed. I should point out that electric cars, in my view, are not the be-all-and-end-all solution. Many people who will travel here to work or around the constituency will do it by walking, cycling or public transport, but they are a means forward to tackling our climate change emergency, our crisis. But the commissioner will know that we will anticipate that, in future, places in Wales may be subject to congestion car charging—who knows? In which case, we want to give people options of how to avoid that and do it with clean vehicles. Could I ask how you will communicate that to staff here in the Commission and to Members' staff when it is brought forward in January or February?

Can I thank Huw Irranca-Davies for raising this important question, and for his keen interest in the subject? He's absolutely right, of course, that, whilst electric cars are much better for the environment in terms of their day-to-day operation, they still carry with them problems concerning brake and tyre particulates, so they're not the be be-all and end-all, as Huw Irranca-Davies has said. Nonetheless, they will improve the carbon footprint that we have collectively here in the Senedd.

We are proposing to put together a frequently asked questions paper that will be available to Members, to Members' staff, to Commission staff—that will be available on the intranet. And in January, we'll be launching pages on the intranet with information about the scheme, the costs, the models, the scheme operator, and so forth. So, all information regarding the scheme will be available to Members, to Members' staff and Commission staff in the next month.

Thank you.

Item 4 this afternoon is topical questions, and the first question is from Heledd Fychan to be answered by the Minister for Education and the Welsh Language. Heledd Fychan.

Although this data is disappointing, our commitment to increase the use of the Welsh language and to reach a million by 2050 remains. We must look in detail at the census and all other data sources, particularly when the annual population survey shows an upward trend and the census shows a reduction.

Thank you, Minister. Given that it's Welsh Language Rights Day today, I think it's very appropriate that we are having a discussion, and, obviously, there is more data to be released in terms of the census as well, and I greatly hope, given that our parties are co-operating on a number of very important elements in terms of Cymraeg 2050, that that dialogue can continue. And, evidently, we need more time to analyse and understand that data in detail. But the truth is that there are fewer Welsh speakers compared with 10 years ago. We can argue in terms of the skills between three and 15 years old, but that's what the census shows us for the second decade. That means therefore that we are further from reaching the target of a million Welsh speakers today than we were when the target was established.

I'd ask you therefore that we do look—. We do know from the past in terms of targets such as eradicating child poverty by 2020 and what the reality is of that in Wales, that we have to ensure that slogans or aims such as Cymraeg 2050—. We've always said that it is ambitious, but we've also seen over recent years, time and time, again a number of local authorities, through the Welsh in education strategic plans, not reaching the targets that they had set for themselves in terms of reaching that aim. So, I do think that we need to look seriously, as the new WESPs come into force, at how we then monitor.

Evidently, a very important element in terms of the co-operation agreement is the Welsh education Bill, which should ensure that young people can leave school with the Welsh language. I think we need to look seriously at the strength of that Bill in terms of ensuring that that fundamental right is available to everyone, because if we are serious—we say time and time again; you say time and again, Minister, and I endorse that—that the Welsh language belongs to everybody, if only 20 per cent of our children can have the opportunity to be taught through the medium of Welsh fully, how can the Welsh language truly belong to everyone?

I've met a number of young people who are 16, 17-years-old, who say already that they regret that they haven't learned Welsh, and they're not confident leaving school in terms of their Welsh language skills. So, there are things in the co-operation agreement in terms of investing in that age cohort, and there are some encouraging things in terms of people over the age of 16 in terms of the Welsh language, but we can't take that for granted. And I would ask as well—. One of the things that we have discussed, time and time again, in this Chamber is the importance of having equal access to the Welsh language and what does local provision mean. And time and time again, we've discussed barriers in terms of transport and new English-medium schools being built in areas where there is a great need for Welsh-medium schools, and these are schools that are funded mainly by the Welsh Government. So, the Welsh education Bill has to be one that ensures that that doesn't continue, if we are serious about ensuring equal access.

Heledd, you need to ask your questions now, because we've got many other questions to ask too.

Okay. Thank you very much. That feeling is extremely important, but could I ask, therefore: what are the Welsh Government's plans in terms of ensuring that that national feeling and the engagement with the Welsh language does ensure that everyone has the opportunity to proceed in that fashion, that we don't just leave that as a battle for Welsh speakers, and that that is something that is important to everyone, wherever they are in Wales? There is work to be done, and we're ready to co-operate on this, but the Welsh education Bill certainly has to have teeth, which means that there will be a drastic change in the next decade.

Well, I'll try and respond to that broad range of comments and questions. The Member started by saying that the figures clearly demonstrated that we're further away from our target. We must look at the census, but also the other data sources, which, as I said at the outset, show an upward trend whilst the census shows a downward trend, so we need to look carefully at all of the data, not just part of the data. But, at the end of the day, it's not in regulations and reviews and forms that the Welsh language is going to prosper. The figures in Ireland show that far more people speak Irish than use the language. What we want to see in our schools, our hospitals, our public services, our workplaces, our pubs, our sports clubs, is that the Welsh language is used confidently and naturally in all contexts.

Now, the Member made a series of comments on Welsh-medium education and the Bill—well, we have a commitment in the co-operation agreement to tackle that issue, so the process is ongoing at the moment, as the Member knows. And people are calling for different things; it's our function as a Government to try and deliver on our real agenda, and there's an invitation for Plaid Cymru to join us in doing that. There is more that can be done than just making demands. There is an opportunity to help deliver, so I would invite you to do that too.

But, at the end of the day, as you heard the First Minister say yesterday: we all want to ensure that Welsh-medium education is available to all children in Wales who wish to access it. But, at the end of the day, what yesterday's figures tell me too is that we need to unite the education system, the Welsh-medium and English-medium around a commitment to ensuring that every child can leave school, whether you're in Welsh-medium schools or English-medium education, with fluency in the Welsh language. That's the opportunity here. Whatever kind of education you access, you should leave as a confident Welsh speaker, and to close that gap that certainly exists at the moment between Welsh-medium education and those learning Welsh in the English-medium sector. There are some excellent examples in the English-medium sector of people learning Welsh, but it is inconsistent, and we need to improve standards generally. So, that's the aim.

The Member concluded by asking what we're going to do to build on the pride felt in the Welsh language, and I agree entirely with her, and that's why we shouldn't be disheartened. The context of these figures is very different to the context 10 years ago. I was looking at Twitter this morning, from Beth Fisher, who said:

'There's a lot going around about the decrease in the figures but here's my opinion as someone who put no to all the questions. Despite knowing very little but desperately trying to learn I've actually never felt more connected to our language. Of course I'd love to be fluent but now it doesn't feel like the 'them & us' camp like it did in the past but instead it genuinely feels like we're all in this together & there is little judgement but more of a feeling that a little is better than none'.

She goes on to say:

'So perhaps as well as the "can you understand, speak and write..." questions on the census maybe there should be a question like "Do you feel a connection to the Welsh language." And for that',

she says,

'I would have definitely said "Ydw dwi yn".'

I speak Welsh every day, but, as Members here know, not very well. I also know that children in primary schools across Swansea also speak Welsh every day at school. Two questions: are we asking the right question on the census? Should we ask how often people speak Welsh?

And, in English, what is the correlation between the number of pupils attending Welsh-medium schools between the ages of three and 18 and those who are showing as being able to speak and write Welsh?

I thank the Member for the question, and it’s a very important question, I think, if you do want to tackle what’s being demonstrated in these figures. The census doesn’t tell us anything about Welsh language use, and it doesn’t tell us anything about people’s perception of what it is to be a Welsh speaker. So, it asks a question that it is binary, at the end of the day: do you speak Welsh, or do you not? But my personal view is that we do need to look at these figures in their context, as I said. That is, if you get an official document from Government, which you must respond to, and respond to honestly, and that asks you a question as to whether you speak Welsh, then there are questions of perception, questions of confidence, that come into your response to that question. And if you look at where the reductions have been, it’s happened in local authority areas where there is a smaller concentration of Welsh speakers, so that would be consistent with the ideas I’ve just outlined. But also, the annual survey does ask more questions that can draw out the detail that Mike Hedges mentioned. That’s why it’s important that we look at the whole context as we discuss this important area.

I thank Heledd Fychan for tabling this question. I’m sure, Minister, that you share my concerns that the figures announced yesterday are deeply disappointing—you said that on Twitter, and also in responding to Heledd. My concerns about accountability for the target are confirmed once again by these figures. As I’ve said before, ‘Cymraeg 2050’ is a target that none of the current Ministers in the Welsh Government will be accountable for when we reach the year 2050. In 28 years’ time, who should be accountable if that target is met or not? And, more importantly, who or what would be blamed today? As we’ve said in this Chamber previously, it’s important that we do send out positive messages about the language, showing that the language is cool and modern and can be used in our day-to-day lives. Only through tackling the challenge in this way can we ensure that the most beautiful language on earth can prosper in our country. So, will the information from the census see the Welsh Government changing any part of its Welsh language policies? Thank you.

Thank you. I agree with Sam Kurtz—it’s important that we do find ways of promoting the Welsh language, and continue to find creative ways of doing so, so it is cool and modern for those who will hear those positive messages. But there are many different ways of doing that. I had an interesting and constructive discussion with the Welsh language partnership council this morning as to how to respond to some of the results that were published yesterday.

In terms of the ‘Cymraeg 2050’ strategy, to be honest, I don’t think the figures that we saw yesterday tell us much about what’s happened in terms of that strategy. If you think about it, it’s only some two years since the policy was started and then COVID took hold and then the census took place. So, I think we also need to look at the broader context. And a range of things have also happened since the census last March. But, certainly, I’ve said from the very outset that we need to look again at the trajectory towards 2050 whatever the figures would be today, whether they showed an increase or a decrease, and that’s certainly the objective still.

I thank the Minister.

The next question is to be asked by Laura Anne Jones and to be answered by the Minister for Health and Social Services.

Strep A infections cause a number of common childhood illnesses. It's not unusual to see cases associated with nurseries and schools. Nurseries and schools have received guidance from Public Health Wales, and parents of unwell children are being advised to seek medical advice for diagnosis and treatment.

Thank you, and a massive thank you to the Presiding Officer and Deputy Presiding Officer for allowing this topical question today, and thank you for an initial response, Minister, and thank you for the written statement last night, although I know many across this Chamber were disappointed that there was no oral statement yesterday, so that Members across the Chamber would have the opportunity to ask questions on this. Of course, it's important that it was brought to the floor today, so thank you again. And, of course, it's crucially important that concerned parents and carers across Wales are kept up with current developments. There has been some obvious concern, with the sad deaths of nine children across the UK, one of which was in Wales, and our thoughts go out to those families for the loss of their child. And I believe it's just been announced in breaking news that there's been an outbreak in Carmarthenshire, with two seriously children and 24 cases reported of scarlet fever in the primary school there.

Minister, it's obviously, of course, crucial that we don't cause any sort of panic, but it is important that schools and nurseries are extra vigilant and that there is a universal awareness of what to do and what steps to take. And on that, I’d like to ask you how you’re working with the UK Government and Public Health Wales to ensure that schools are acutely aware of what to do and what steps to take to minimise the spread of strep A, and what the protocol is for them when this happens; it would be useful to know.

There was, of course, some concern also over the amounts of antibiotics available, and I believe that you’re working with the UK Government on that, so an update would be fantastic. I also understand the reason why antibiotics will be given to whole schools if there is a certified case, but there is some understandable concern from the medical profession about giving potentially healthy children antibiotics, because, of course, we want to prevent healthy children from having antibiotics and ensure that's kept to a minimum when they’re younger so that they don’t get immunity to them.

My colleague Altaf Hussain has also said that perhaps it would be a good idea for schools that are affected in the way that I’ve just announced to have access to a paediatrician straight away to confirm the diagnosis and whether they actually do need to have those antibiotics, rather than a blanket approach. But I’d appreciate your thoughts on that, because I understand, obviously, why parents particularly would probably like their children to have them. But, practically, would that be even possible due to the number of paediatricians we have in Wales, of course?

I just wanted to ask one more question: whether, now, if anyone presents in A&E with strep A symptoms, they'll have immediate access to paediatricians rather than having to wait the usual times in A&E. Thank you, and thanks again for bringing this to the floor.

Diolch yn fawr. Can I add my expressions of condolence to, in particular, the family who've recently lost a child? I think we all understand the real concern that many parents are suffering today because of the increase that we are seeing in strep A in our communities.

Public Health Wales issued advice to schools and nurseries at the end of November. Staff should be aware of the possibility of this infection in children who become ill with a fever, sore throat or rash. So, already that advice has gone out. Parents of unwell children are being advised to seek medical advice for diagnosis and treatment.

A child who's got scarlet fever will be asked to withdraw from the setting for 24 hours after the commencement of appropriate antibiotic treatment. Where there are two or more cases of scarlet fever in a setting within the same 10-day period, schools and nurseries have been asked to notify the local health protection team for further guidance. It is at that point that they will take a judgment as to whether you do need to give out antibiotics to the entire class or just to people who've been in close contact. Obviously, they'll make an assessment of whether there's a need for a paediatrician at that point.

So, I think it's really important for us to understand that there are degrees here and, obviously, it's only when it becomes very complex that the real danger kicks in. It's when you get invasive strep A that we really need to be concerned. But, obviously, taking those antibiotics at an appropriate time means that people can be helped.

In terms of the shortage of antibiotics, the good news is that all of the relatively mild illnesses caused by strep A can be treated with common antibiotics. Obviously now we have seen an increase in demand for antibiotics to treat those suspected cases of strep A, and that has led to some pharmacies in Wales experiencing shortages of stock. Now, we're confident that suppliers are working to address any supply issues, and, if people find difficulty obtaining a prescription locally, they may need to visit a different pharmacy, and, if they're still not able to, then they can go back to the GP and they can prescribe an alternative treatment. So, we are working with the UK Government medicine supply team and other partners to make sure that pharmacies in Wales have the supplies that they need.

Thank you for that response from the Minister. I also wanted to ask about the shortage of antibiotics. I think we've had quite a comprehensive response there from the Minister. Two other questions from me, again on communication. I was pleased to see the statement coming last night. I've shared that on my social media, in my constituency, and I'm sure other Members are doing likewise, and the information is being provided to parents through schools. But what's the communication plan as we move forward? I think it's important that we understand that there is a communications plan in place in order to ensure that information is shared consistently, because this concern is not going to go away. And the other element I want to ask about is the additional pressure that I understand there is on A&E departments in hospitals. Because of a lack of understanding and information perhaps, it's quite easy to understand why more parents would take their children to A&E when there's any sign of something that they're concerned with, but, if that puts additional pressures on those departments, what plans does the Government have to ensure that there is additional support provided to enable hospitals to deal with that additional pressure?

Thank you very much. Well, Public Health Wales is leading on ensuring that information is available to the public. I've contacted them today to ask them to simplify the language, because I think, sometimes, it becomes too technical in nature. People perhaps don't understand the difference between strep A and iGAS, and people use terms that the public don't understand. So, I've asked them to look again at that. I think it's important also to understand that scarlet fever does occur in Britain usually, but what we've seen is quite a large increase, and it's strange to see that kind of increase at this time of year. It usually happens in the spring. We're seeing this increase now, and the risk is when this happens when the children have other problems, so if they have chicken pox or another problem at the same time. That's when there are complications.

Of course, there's great pressure on A&E departments at present. So, we will be ensuring that children have another route through the system. What we saw over the weekend was a very great increase in the numbers who were phoning 111 for support. I think it's important that people do call that number, because there is a difference between something that's simple and something that's looks a lot more complex, and 111 can help people though that system to understand what to look out for in terms of symptoms.

So, regarding scarlet fever, people should be aware that you're talking about a sore throat, headache, a fever, nausea, being sick, and then you have a rash perhaps on your chest or on your stomach. But what happens with iGAS, which is a lot more complex, is that your temperature rises a lot, and you have muscle aches. So, it's important that people understand that that's when they should be perhaps getting more information from their local GP.

I'd like to thank my colleague Laura Anne Jones for bringing this forward. Yesterday, I tried to bring forward an emergency question simply because of the fact that I was receiving so many enquiries. It's been touched upon, the availability of antibiotics. My concerns are it's not long now before the holiday period, and I know that parents and grandparents and carers are very concerned that if a child goes ill at the moment, it can take some time for certain symptoms to arise. Of course, we're in that season, aren't we, where children do go down with common ailments? So, it's how those can be distinguished and, just again, some reiteration that, with your working with the UK Government, we will not run out of any type of antibiotics for whichever strain they may be required for.

Also, I've heard the first-hand experience of a constituent of mine with two children who were waiting in A&E for nine and a half hours. At the moment, there's a hospital in north Wales whereby the board says 10 hours' waiting time. But, they were so worried they waited, to be told, 'You could have gone to see your GP', and then other parents are telling me that they're going to see the GP, who's saying, 'If you're that concerned'—because our GPs are overstretched as well—'then you're better going to A&E.'

So, would you be able to put out some clear guidelines? Like my colleague Rhun ap Iorwerth, I've shared your statement, but I'm sure there are other Members who are not here today who might appreciate, maybe next week, an update on where we're at then, because obviously the numbers have increased across the UK, per se. So, we want to be sure that people know exactly what they're dealing with, when to worry and when not to worry, so to speak, when to take action and when action at A&E isn't the right choice. I think that's it. Thank you.

Thanks very much. As I set out in my statement, parents who suspect their children have scarlet fever are advised that they should contact their GP or they should contact 111. Those facilities are available and people are using them. I would suggest at this point that they don't go to A&E, unless they are directed by 111 or their GP.

I've had complaints of delays on 111, I should say.

I think it's important, we've obviously put a lot of additional funding into 111. Obviously, as you say, we are working very closely with UK Government to make sure we don't run out of those antibiotics. We think this has happened because perhaps of the lack of social mixing over the past couple of years. What we're seeing now is a number of cases of this common bacterial infection—let's not forget, this is quite a common infection, it's something that many people just live with—circulating at the same time as that wide range of winter respiratory infections, and we think that's what's resulted in the increase in the number of those rarer and more serious invasive strep A diseases. Thankfully, we're still at fairly low numbers, but we don't know what's coming next, so it is obviously a very concerning time for people with young children.

The Minister for Health and Social Services will also respond to the final topical question. Rhun ap Iorwerth.

I'm saddened that our health workers have got to a point where they feel they need to take industrial action. I fully understand and sympathise with their situation, but, without additional funding from the UK Government, there is simply no money to increase our pay offer without substantial cuts to staffing and essential services. I'm meeting with representatives of all healthcare unions next week to explore if there is any possibility or alternative that might help us to avoid industrial action.

Dirprwy Lywydd, we're facing multiple disputes. Multiple unions have balloted on strike action. Ambulance staff are, of course, the latest to prepare to go on strike. The Minister has said again that it's all down to UK Government cuts, and I agree about their economic vandalism and the harm of their ideologically driven cuts to public spending. But, whilst pay is clearly central to these disputes, the truth is that much of this stems from health staff feeling over a prolonged time that they haven't been supported, and, on that, both the UK Conservative and Welsh Labour Governments have to take a long, hard look at themselves to realise that opportunities have been lost time and time again to show that support.

Now, today, I'm asking the Minister again: when is she going to negotiate? We have a Labour Government refusing to negotiate with trade unions. She said again that she is meeting unions; I meet unions. What we need to see is the opening of meaningful negotiations to try to avert the strikes. Now, let me quote the Labour Party leader to you on breakfast news this week. He said,

'These disputes are quite capable of being resolved',

and, on Monday, at a Labour event, Keir Starmer said,

'Government has been sitting on its hands throughout these disputes, rather than resolving them. Go to Wales and you will see a different government taking a different approach and some not dissimilar disputes have actually been resolved.'

Now, does the Minister know what he's talking about there? Because I don't recognise that as a reflection of this Labour Government's position on the current disputes—nurses don't, ambulance staff don't. As one Royal College of Nursing member told me, 'At this point, there's very little difference between the English and Welsh Governments. Neither are supporting the workforce, no social partnership, no communication, the same pay award. So, why should anyone vote for a Labour Government when nothing is different?'

What is the Labour Government here doing to try to resolve these disputes in Wales, and when does the Minister plan to start negotiating?

Well done.

Thanks very much. It's all very well for you to say, 'Da iawn'. The fact is, we've got a set amount of money. That's it. Right? So, we've got a choice: you either cut services or you cut the number of people in order to give a pay rise. Now, I don't think that's a space that the trade unions will want to enter, but obviously that is an option. That's an option. But, I think we've got to be absolutely clear here: there is no more money. There is no more money. We're in Government—I think it's really important for people to understand—and we are working in a system that was agreed with the trade unions; it's an independent pay commission where everybody gives their evidence, they all say what they'd like to see, and this has gone on for years, and suddenly we're in a different place. Now, I understand we're in a different place because, actually, inflation is very, very different from what it's been in the past. So, I completely understand why these workers are upset. But, let me say again, let me be absolutely clear: it's not just about one group of workers; this is about all of the workers in the NHS. So, you can't single one group out and say, 'Nurses are more important than porters.' There is an 'Agenda for Change' and I am meeting with representatives of the health unions next week to see whether there is any scope anywhere for us to address this issue and to avoid that industrial action.

Minister, the RCN informed me today that you have still not met with them specifically to discuss nurses' pay, and that you've not opened negotiations with them or through the Welsh NHS partnership forum, which I think is extremely disappointing. Frustratingly, you still point the finger at Westminster rather than take responsibility for your actions here. Now, this is your decision. They're your responsibilities. You've got to cut the cloth here as you see fit here. We've got 3,000 nurse vacancies, and a spend on agency nurses of £140 million. Well, that's due to your management of the NHS and your predecessors. These are decisions that you make here and you've got to take responsibility for what is within your gift. You had an additional £1.2 billion in the autumn statement. Now, the Scottish Government have offered band 5 nurses an 8.7 per cent pay award, which has paused strike action in Scotland, and the RCN are going out to ask members if that is acceptable. So, if the Scottish Government can get around the negotiation table and make an offer, why can't you? What is different here in Wales to the position in Scotland? Rhun has mentioned Keir Starmer. Keir Starmer is saying and implying that the disputes here have been resolved. That's what he's saying. So, can I ask you, Minister, have you corrected Keir Starmer or does he know something that we don't know?

Can I just be clear that the Scottish Government work within a different framework from the framework that we have? So, we have signed up to the independent pay commission. That's something that all the unions—they all agreed to do that. They all gave their evidence. We gave our evidence. They take independent evidence from people who know about the economy, inflation and all of those things, and then they come up with a conclusion. The system in Scotland is different. So, that is one reason why they're different.

And the other thing you've got to remember is they have offered a greater amount of pay and that has come at a significant cost when it comes to services. So, they've taken about £400 million out of the services. So, when next week you're having a go at me because of waiting lists, you'll understand that, actually, we've got to make sure that we're not only supporting people who work in the NHS, we're also supporting people who are waiting to be treated on the NHS, and that's the balance you have to strike as a Government. And we think it's right that we have to understand that there are people across the NHS who deserve a pay award, we've gone as far as we can, but I think it's really important that people understand that, however much we'd like to go further, if we were to respect and to give an inflationary pay award, it would cost us about £900 million. Now, that is a significant amount of money to come out of front-line services. That is a very, very difficult call, and I've got to make it clear that I don't think the public would be in a position where they'd say, 'We are happy for you to cut our services in order to pay that.'

Thank you, Minister.

Item 5 this afternoon is the 90-second statements, and the first is from Jayne Bryant.

Last night, as chair of the cross-party group on diabetes, I was privileged to join Members, Diabetes Cymru and the Baldwin family in the Senedd to celebrate the life and legacy of Peter Baldwin as we approach what would have been his twenty-first birthday. Peter turned 13 on 10 December 2014. He loved life, school and his friends. He was a fit, healthy teenager who, as we heard from his sister last night, loved ice cream, and he had the world at his feet. Tragically, Peter passed away a few weeks later due to complications resulting from his diabetes being diagnosed too late.

Since his death, his mother Beth has campaigned tirelessly to help raise awareness and prevent other families suffering the same tragedy. By sharing his story, Beth has encouraged others to take the step of getting their child checked for diabetes before it's too late. Beth's efforts and Peter's legacy are truly inspirational and far reaching. Lives will have been saved because of it.

The refreshed 4Ts campaign is just one example of this. The campaign highlights the four symptoms to look out for when diagnosing diabetes: toilet—going more often; tired; thirsty; and thinner. This has raised awareness of the symptoms and prompted parents and adults alike to ask for a test for diabetes. So much good work is being done in this field by groups such as Diabetes UK and campaigners like the Baldwins. I applaud their efforts and urge all Members to do what they can to spread awareness of the symptoms of this disease. It really can make the world of difference.

On Christmas Day this year, as we feast on turkey and mince pies, there will be a notable milestone marked in Carmarthen as Radio Glangwili celebrates 50 years of broadcasting. The service was inspired by a meeting of members of the Urdd who came together and, in no time at all, led by Sulwyn Thomas and Gerwyn Griffiths and others, they broadcast the first programme on Christmas Day in 1972. The programme was two hours long, combining greetings to patients on the wards with special contributions from the Lions coach, Carwyn James, and the singer, Rosalind Lloyd.

Over the decades, the station went from strength to strength. It developed with technological changes, growing from a small studio in the hospital to a purpose-built studio. The station now broadcasts 24 hours a day, seven days a week, including a range of programming in Welsh and in English. The station has also broken a world record for broadcasting for 24 hours non-stop, the first to do this through the medium of Welsh. Patients and staff at the hospital have been sustaining the service, with the service providing both entertainment and succour to them over the years. Thank you to all the volunteers there who have worked so very hard to ensure the success of the station. I wish them well for the next 50 years. Thank you very much.

Before we move to the next item, I'd just like to remind Members that unfortunately the clocks are not visible on the screens, but I can assure you I'll be keeping a close eye on the timings to make sure that everyone keeps to time.

Item 6 today is a debate on a Member's legislative proposal—a British Sign Language Bill. A recording of this debate, which will include BSL interpretation, will be available by the end of the day on Senedd.tv. I call on Mark Isherwood to move the motion.

Diolch. In February 2021, the Senedd voted in favour of my proposal for a Bill that would make provision to encourage the use of British Sign Language, BSL, in Wales, and improve access to education and services in BSL. As I said then, in October 2018 calls were made at the north Wales Lend Me Your Ears conference for British Sign Language legislation in Wales, looking at the British Sign Language (Scotland) Act 2015 and their national BSL plan, published in October 2017, establishing a national advisory group, including up to 10 deaf people who use BSL as their preferred or first language.

Although the Wales Act 2017 reserves equal opportunities to the UK Government, Senedd lawyers state that a BSL Wales Bill would be compliant if it related to the exceptions listed in it. I also quoted the British Deaf Association, BDA, which had told me that my planned BSL Bill is an enormous step forward and, if it's anything like the BSL Bill in Scotland, will receive unanimous and total support of all the parties. It's a win-win', they said. With Members of all parties voting in favour of the motion that day, demonstrating a clear appetite for such BSL legislation across the Senedd Chamber, and with D/deaf people and communities across Wales continuing to ask me to bring forward a BSL Bill in Wales, I'm keen to continue to pursue this and seek your support.

I was delighted when Labour MP Rosie Cooper introduced her BSL Bill in the UK Parliament, co-sponsored by Conservative Lord Holmes of Richmond. This secured the UK Government's support, it was passed in March, and gained Royal Assent in April. The UK Act recognises BSL as a language of England, Wales and Scotland, requires the Secretary of State to report on the promotion and facilitation of the use of BSL by ministerial Government departments, and requires guidance to be issued in relation to BSL. However, although the UK Act creates a duty for the UK Government to prepare and publish BSL reports describing what Government departments have done to promote the use of BSL in their communications with the public, it specifically excludes reporting on matters devolved to Wales and Scotland. The Bill does not extend the reporting or guidance duty to the Governments of Wales and Scotland. Therefore, my motion today regarding the need for a Wales-specific BSL Act also incorporates this. As the BDA states,

'BSL is not just a language; it is also a gateway to learning...and the means whereby Deaf people survive and flourish in a hearing world.'

Only yesterday, RNID Cymru told me that they support this proposal for a BSL Wales Bill, that now that both Westminster and Holyrood have passed BSL Bills, they hope that this Bill would complement those pieces of legislation and help to improve the provision of BSL across Wales, and that the policy objectives of the proposed Bill are positive, and are going beyond the Westminster BSL Act by including a commitment to produce reports every five years, which will provide valuable insight into the progress of implementing the Bill.

I will be supporting this legislative proposal today, and I urge all other Members to also support it. BSL is the first language of people in the deaf community. BSL is more like Chinese than English, where there is the use of hands as descriptors, rather than spelling words. Sign language interpreters are meant to be available in both health and other Government settings, but I have heard of and seen many instances where that has not been the case. My sister is profoundly deaf, and she and others in the deaf community use BSL as their main means of communication. I am president of the hard of hearing group in Swansea, and as people's hearing deteriorates, BSL becomes the means of communication.

The Petitions Committee, a few years ago, received a petition to improve access to education and services in British Sign Language, to improve the quality of life for deaf people of all ages:

'Improve Access for families to learn BSL: When a child is diagnosed as being Deaf/hard of hearing parents should be offered free/subsidised BSL lessons....By using speech alone, Deaf children struggle/fail to develop communication skills missing important milestones. Learning other languages through BSL (English/Welsh) will improve the child's understanding and comprehension.'

For the deaf community, this is an important piece of legislation, and I urge all Members to support it.

I'd just like to thank my colleague Mark Isherwood for tabling today's proposal. It would make for an excellent Bill, and a necessary one. I hope that it would force us to be a lot better in Wales at taking into account British Sign Language needs. One area where I believe this would bring about positive change is on British Sign Language in education, as my colleague has touched on already. The recent census data shows that British Sign Language was the main language for 22,000 people across England and Wales aged three and above, an increase of over 6,000 since 2011. With there being an increase in those using British Sign Language, it has never been more important that there is an increased awareness and we adapt to using British Sign Language in education, healthcare, business and daily life. This brings into focus the necessity and urgent need to ensure our education system is reflective of the growing sign language community. I look forward to hearing our education Minister's—and, of course, yours, Minister—thoughts on British Sign Language and its use in schools and exams.

Qualifications Wales claim that there is a range of British Sign Language qualifications currently available on the credit and qualifications framework, with some at levels 1 and 2, which is effectively GCSEs. However, Deputy Presiding Officer, nowhere in Wales actually has the capability or facilities to deliver these essential qualifications. They would have to go to England to undertake the exam, from what I believe. And although Qualifications Wales have indicated there will be a new made-for-Wales BSL qualification aimed at school-age learners, it does not appear that these will be for GCSE-aged learners. The UK Government, however, has actually begun to develop subject content to see if it is possible to deliver BSL in regular school settings. Two of the UK-wide BSL boards, Signature and the Institute of British Sign Language, allow children to take qualifications through the medium of British Sign Language, although as I said, no Welsh schools are able to deliver this examination process. In the UK, there are 22 schools with provision for deaf children: 18 in England, three in Scotland, one in Northern Ireland and none in Wales—and this is not something that we should be proud of. I know that this Bill will go a long way to ensuring things will only improve for our Welsh deaf community. I'm pleased to throw my weight behind this legislative proposal, and I urge all Members across the Chamber to support this motion today.

Dirprwy Lywydd, can I just confirm how long I have to speak?

Three minutes.

Perfect. Thank you. Firstly, I'd like to pay tribute to the hard work and dedication of my colleague Mark Isherwood in fighting continuously and rigorously for the introduction of a BSL Bill in Wales. I dearly hope that his work and the work of many others involved won't be in vain and that a BSL Bill will eventually be introduced, because truthfully, making statutory provision for the use of British Sign Language will undoubtably improve access to education and to services and help deaf people and those with hearing issues fully integrate into every aspect of Welsh life, which at present is being denied to them.

In many ways, I'm surprised, given all the efforts this Government makes in setting health and well-being goals, that this Bill has not already been brought forward, because I'm sure it would have resounding cross-party support, and would have profoundly positive impacts on the deaf community and those who are hard of hearing.

I have stated before in this Chamber—and I'm not ashamed to repeat these points again—that BSL users face a lot of barriers in accessing services and trying to live their daily lives, especially in accessing healthcare provision. Sixty-eight per cent of BSL users repeatedly experience prohibitive barriers when contacting or booking healthcare appointments, because they have to travel to doctors' surgeries to ask for their appointments, then have to wait for an appointment that may be cancelled at short notice if an interpreter is not available.

We also know that even when deaf people do manage to get an appointment, 38 per cent have reported experiencing difficulties in getting the BSL communication support that they need, with a high number reporting that after their appointment, they were left not being fully aware of the details of their diagnosis or an understanding of their prescriptions, which, let's be honest, is quite a scary place to be for them, and a sad reflection of how those who are marginalised are often not treated with the same care and attention as others.

We further know that exclusion of deaf BSL users can also have a greater impact on their mental health and well-being, with 33 per cent of BSL users reportedly feeling lonely often or always, which is six times higher compared to non-disabled people. This is why it is so important that services and public spaces are made accessible for BSL users.

Across the UK, there's a shortage of qualified and registered BSL interpreters, which limits the ability of service providers to make themselves accessible to deaf BSL signers. According to the recent census for England and Wales, there are 26,000 people who use BSL—as my colleague Laura pointed out—as their main language, whilst there are only 1,400 registered interpreters. I think this should be reason enough to introduce legislation that will help encourage and promote BSL interpreters as a profession.

I call on the Minister for Social Justice, Jane Hutt.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I want to thank Mark Isherwood for bringing this important debate to Senedd Cymru, and thank all Members who've contributed. We're all aware of how important this issue is, as we need to ensure that all deaf people in Wales have access to information and services. Last week, I made a statement to the Senedd to mark the international day of disabled people, and I highlighted a range of areas where we're taking action to advance disabled people's rights in Wales. This, of course, includes deaf disabled people.

It's therefore timely to focus on this issue, and I welcome the opportunity to do so. When considering deaf BSL users, it is essential that we understand how BSL and other preferred methods of communication could be treated more equally when compared with Welsh and English. I know that this issue has previously been highlighted in Senedd questions by Mike Hedges today and other Members on previous occasions. I thank you for your views today. Of course, we did discuss this in a short debate in January about hidden inequality, when this was also discussed. For many deaf people, BSL is their first or preferred language, and since 2004, Welsh Government has recognised BSL as a language of Wales.

Members will be aware of the 'Locked out: liberating disabled people's lives and rights in Wales beyond COVID-19' report, which was produced during the pandemic by and with disabled people. The Welsh Government responded by setting up the disability rights taskforce. As part of this, we've established an access to services, which includes the communications and technology working group, and it will ensure that the lived experience of disabled people drives forward the advancement of disabled people's rights, including access to BSL through the development of a disability rights action plan.

We are working with the British Deaf Association, which conducted a BSL audit for Welsh Government, and they're due to publish their final report in January—so, within a few weeks. Many of the recommendations in this report will help us to build resilience within the BSL translation and interpreting services, and also help us to build awareness of BSL in Wales. This will enable us to begin to set the standard for equality and access to services and information in BSL within Wales, including meaningful consultation and engagement with the deaf community.

As well as building capacity for learning and teaching BSL at all levels of the education system in Wales, I'm keenly aware that, to enable full access to information services and to remove barriers to participation, there needs to be a drive to build the capacity of deaf BSL translators and BSL-English and BSL-Welsh interpreters. We've all experienced the challenge—I have—of booking the few BSL interpreters who are available in Wales, and it's vital that we use BSL interpreters who understand the context of Wales and the nuances of using BSL alongside the Welsh language. Without these services, many people would not be able to take part and have their voices equally heard. I think the presence of BSL interpreters in Welsh Government press conferences from the start of the pandemic and currently, obviously, now part of the way we do our communications is essential. And I do welcome the BSL interpreter today in the Senedd.

I'm grateful, Minister, and I'm really pleased to hear the positive action that Welsh Government have taken in this particular field, but legislation, and enshrining something in legislation, gives people real rights, it does. That's why the Member has brought this proposal to the floor this afternoon. Would the Government be minded to support or work with the Member to bring forward a legislative proposal that ultimately will enshrine those rights and actually make that leap jump in improvements that we all want to see for people with hearing disabilities?

I think there are two things. I'm coming on to that in terms of legislation, but I do think it's also very important that we do hear from the British Deaf Association on their audit and, also, on the outcomes of the really important work that's been undertaken by the disability taskforce, but I will come on to legislative issues as well.

Just in terms of the references to the well-being of future generations Act, it is important, because it's one of our collective national well-being goals to make sure that we can reach for a more equal Wales, and it does mean that public bodies and public services boards are captured under the Act, and they're obliged to maximise their contribution to the achievement of a more equal Wales. This is underpinned by our long-standing commitment to the social model of disability, as Mark referenced, for deaf BSL users; the ability to get on with their lives unimpeded by communication barriers is fundamental.

Just finally, Dirprwy Lywydd, the British Sign Language Act 2022 contains provision to recognise BSL as a language in England, Wales and Scotland. This Act originated as a private Member's Bill, that's been already outlined today, that was introduced by Rosie Cooper MP last year. In April this year, I led a debate to approve a legislative consent memorandum in relation to the then BSL Bill. The Act does not prevent the Senedd from legislating in this area, should it choose to do so. There are carve-outs in the Act for devolved public authorities and for Welsh Ministers, and it's right that we can decide on a comprehensive Welsh method to suit our own approach.

The provisions in this Act will make a positive contribution to the lives of deaf BSL users, which we do welcome, alongside our Welsh approach. We now need to engage more with our deaf BSL citizens, and also deaf communities who do not use BSL, and there's so much value to understanding the lived experiences of all deaf people. We're committed to using this evidence and understanding to develop this co-ordinated approach to promote BSL and assistive and adaptive technologies as well. We can't change history, but we can influence and change what the future holds, and Welsh Government is committed to building a future of equality for all deaf and hard of hearing people in Wales, and this debate here is a really important contribution to that. Diolch.

I call on Mark Isherwood to reply to the debate.

Diolch. Well, firstly, thank you very much to Mike Hedges for your support for this proposal. As he said, deaf communities use BSL as their main means of communication and, for deaf communities, this is an important piece of legislation. Thank you to Laura Anne Jones for her comments. As she said, this would bring a positive change in BSL in education. She highlighted the increase in numbers of people using BSL, the need to adapt to using BSL in public services and daily life, and the need to allow students to take qualifications through the medium of BSL. Joel James—again, thank you for your contribution—hopes, as do I, that the BSL Bill will eventually be introduced in Wales to help deaf people, to empower deaf people and to remove barriers that they identify. As he said, the Act would have profound positive impacts on marginalised deaf people, including access to healthcare provision, and he explained that currently, the lack of support is impacting on mental health and well-being amongst deaf people, which is six times higher than in the general population.

Thank you to the Minister for her comments. As she said, it's important that all deaf people should have access to information and services. The Minister referred to the 'Locked out' report and disability rights taskforce. She may recall that, during the first months of lockdown, I was approached by the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, the Royal National Institute of Blind People, Guide Dogs Cymru and I had meetings online with groups of adults with learning disabilities, and they identified the barriers that they had encountered since lockdown, which hadn't been designed in from the beginning of the changes introduced post lockdown, because there weren't duties on Ministers or other public bodies in Wales to do this proactively, to co-produce these things automatically. And the Minister did attend, when I raised this, the cross-party group on disability, and did attend the Equality and Social Justice Committee when I also raised this, and did respond, but I hope that the Minister would agree that it shouldn't have happened in the first place. We shouldn't have had to get to that point. And that's what this Bill seeks to do, at least for d/Deaf people and BSL users.

We welcome the audit that the BDA have been doing for the Welsh Government on these matters. Of course, the BDA have been keeping me informed, and the cross-party group on deaf issues informed of this throughout. Despite that, they're supporting my proposal for a Bill and, in fact, today's motion was crafted with them, ensuring that the views of the people they represent are articulated within it.

The Minister referred to the need for—I'll finish with this—BSL interpreters. I remember, during my first term, your second term, you had a programme of BSL interpreters, and a lot more people were brought in and trained up to a high level, but it's not working now. There are huge shortages, exemplified by the fact that, last week, I asked the Senedd to provide a simultaneous translation for this debate. And I know from the communications that I've had that there are a lot of very upset deaf people outside this Senedd who wanted to follow this debate live, who feel that we have breached our duties under the social model of disability and the Equality Act 2010 to them, and they will have to tune in separately later to see if they can look at a subsequent translation. I regret that that's happened. But notwithstanding that, I welcome the support that we've heard from the few speakers today. I wish we'd had longer to debate this. And, please, please, Members, I urge you to allow this, at least in principle, to go forward, adding to the positive vote that we had in February last year. Diolch yn fawr.

Before I move to the question, can I just clarify that the Senedd did look at getting a translator in? Unfortunately, we were unable to do so, and that's why we've gone for the alternative on this occasion, which is a recording and there will be an interpreter on the recording.

The proposal is to note the proposal. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection, therefore, I will defer voting under this item until voting time.

Item 7 today is a debate on the Petitions Committee report, 'Mark Allen’s Law: Water Safety and Drowning Prevention'. I call on the Chair of the committee to move the motion—Jack Sargeant.

Thank you very much. On behalf of the Petitions Committee, thank you for the opportunity to bring forward this important debate—

—on the report, 'Mark Allen’s Law: Water Safety and Drowing Prevention'. Leeanne Bartley, who is here in the gallery today with her husband, David, created this petition following the tragic death of her son. Mark was only 18 years old when he died in June of 2018 after jumping into a freezing reservoir on a hot day. The family believe that he could have been saved if a throw line was available near the water that day.

The petition, Deputy Presiding Officer, calls for,

'Mark Allen’s law: we want throw line stations around all open water sites in Wales,'

and it has already raised awareness among the public, having collected a total of 11,027 signatures. It forms part of a wider campaign undertaken by Mark’s mum to raise awareness of the risks, educate the public and campaign for action to promote water safety and prevent drowning.

As part of this campaign, a similar petition was submitted to the UK Government calling for legislation to require throw lines to be installed around open bodies of water, which was supported by over 100,000 people. It was debated in the UK Parliament last January, with no commitment for change by the UK Government. We’re proud that we are taking this issue further in Wales. As Chair of the Petitions Committee, I feel very privileged to be able to listen to and support individuals like Leeanne to highlight challenges and make a positive difference.

During the committee inquiry, we looked in depth at the issues arising from this petition, and we heard evidence from Water Safety Wales, water utility companies, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and Natural Resources Wales to gain a fuller picture of the context, the challenges and the action needed to increase water safety and prevent drowning. But, most importantly, we heard from the petitioner directly and from other families who have lost loved ones to drowning. We heard about the devastating impact that such a tragedy has on their lives, but also of their steely determination to raise awareness and prevent future loss of life through drowning. We are ever so grateful for their time, their honesty and their willingness to share their trauma so that others might benefit.

Our report made six recommendations to the Welsh Government, five of which have been accepted and one accepted in principle. If I could speak to recommendation 1 first, we welcome that water safety and drowning prevention will now be within the Minister for Climate Change’s portfolio to ensure the leadership and co-ordination that had been lacking as it is an area that straddles various portfolios.

Turning to recommendation 2, I was particularly pleased to hear from Water Safety Wales that the Minister and her officials have been engaging with them and are currently considering funding provision to provide dedicated support for the organisation. This would enable a significant step forward to deliver the drowning prevention strategy in Wales and I look forward to hearing more about this from the Minister.

We understand your microphone is currently not working, Jack. Do you want to hang on a second, please?

No problem, Presiding Officer.

Can we just check?

Are we back on?

Yes, it's back on now, Jack.

Presiding Officer, I'll revert to recommendation 3—I believe that's where it cut off.

I do welcome the positive response to recommendation 3, to bring partners together, building on the good work currently undertaken. However, there is still more to do. A water safety and education programme must be embedded into our education system, with a clear action plan for delivery to ensure each and every one of our children learns how to stay safe near or in water. I call on the Minister to ensure that this will not be optional, but a compulsory part of the education in Wales.

In addition, I support the call from water safety campaigners for all children to receive swimming lessons, which may of course save their life. This has been highlighted to the Senedd by Jenny Rathbone and the culture committee during evidence that was given. The evidence highlighted the fact that, post COVID, only 42 per cent of schoolchildren in Wales attending school could actually swim in 2022.

Presiding Officer, if I speak to recommendation 4, which was accepted in principle, it called on the Welsh Government to take steps to ensure that there is clarity about the minimum safety information and signage required around water bodies to increase awareness of the risks present to those who enter the water. Now, I understand, and the committee understands, that this is a complex area, and we do welcome the action to explore this further with developing a guide for those organisations.

Turning to recommendations 5 and 6, looking at awareness raising and educating the public was the most consistent message we had from all who gave evidence to our inquiry. It is absolutely vital, Presiding Officer. And to do so effectively we must recognise that water safety and drowning prevention sits within the wider context of outdoor safety. Effective joined-up thinking and working is key to ensure the safety messages are clear, are consistent, and are able to support people to enjoy the beautiful and challenging outdoors of Wales as safely as possible.

To conclude, Presiding Officer, the committee fully supports Leeanne Bartley, her campaign, and hopes that our recommendations go some way to ensuring that other families do not have to go through that terrible journey that I have described in opening. I look forward to hearing the contributions from other Members and of course the Minister’s response. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd, and I'm absolutely delighted that the Welsh Government has supported the work of the Petitions Committee and has accepted its recommendations. I'm particularly pleased to see that this Government has recognised that, in order to provide clear and effective leadership and co-ordination for water safety and drowning prevention, there needs to be oversight from a single ministerial portfolio. I also want to take this opportunity to thank Mark Allen's family for their tireless campaigning on this matter and their desire to see that no other family goes through what they did. I can only imagine the trauma that that caused.

Every summer, so many people attempt to take a dip in open water, and, sadly, this situation is unlikely to change anytime soon. Whilst I recognise that a lot more needs to be done in helping to teach people to swim, we have to remember that it is sometimes the overconfidence of some swimmers that often puts them in danger, because they take too many risks. I therefore have no doubt that it will be targeted campaigns, particularly in a localised context, and during summer months in and around areas known for open-water swimming, which will be extremely effective in helping people consider more carefully the risks when accessing open water, and we should be prioritising these campaigns on the tv, on the radio, on social media, in the local cinemas and in the local news, and highlight the dangers of open-water swimming. Moreover, we need to do more than just having the signs saying 'No swimming' or 'Dangerous currents', because—and I know it's not their intention, but—they're often perceived as nothing more than randomly placed signs, with people rarely giving any consideration to how accurate they are. With this in mind, I would urge that consideration is given to signage that fully explains the risks, and gives a complete breakdown of what can happen. I believe these signs should also highlight the number of deaths and explain in detail the geographical area under the water, which will reinforce why it is not safe for entering. These signs should also contain safety instructions and life-saving procedures.

I also think that, given the number of instances of people becoming ill by swimming in rivers with raw sewage overflows, we should be highlighting areas where raw sewage is often being discharged into water and explain the dangers of swimming in it. Where we have tourists in Wales who are wild swimmers who are often looking for open water, they ultimately do not have the local knowledge of the pollution incidents.

With this in mind, Dirprwy Lywydd, I can't stress enough the importance of this petition and of providing more swimming lessons for schoolchildren, and helping everyone better understand water safety. And I would urge the Welsh Government to take seriously the recommendations that they've accepted, and do everything they can to tackle the issues related to it. I and my group fully support this petition, and I would urge every other Member to do so. Thank you.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd, and thank you to the committee Chair and also, mainly, to the clerking team for all of their work.

Leeanne's campaign was actually one of the first campaigns to get in touch with me as a newly elected Member; when I literally just scrolled back through Messenger, it was actually David who got in touch with me. Now, that was in 2021, and I'm very glad that we are now here at this point. There's not much more I can really add to the Chair's contribution, but the work we undertook as a committee was, I believe, greatly appreciated not just by Leeanne and her family, but also the families of others who have lost loved ones due to drowning.

As a committee, we held panels with families who had experienced similar to Leeanne, and the evidence they gave was invaluable and greatly appreciated, especially given the distressing nature of their evidence. They, like Leeanne and so many others who chose to engage with us as a committee, are a constant source of courage, inspiration and power for those who seek to make a difference. And I have to say, it's one of the best things about being a member of the Petitions Committee: being able to engage with people like Leeanne and help them get their voices heard here in our Senedd.

In terms of the recommendations and the Government's response, I am pleased that the Government has accepted the majority of our recommendations, and one in principle. The evidence gathered, I believe, pointed to some of the good work already going on by various organisations like Dŵr Cymru, like the fire service, in working to improve water safety. But what I think was lacking was the joined-up thinking and coherence in educational programmes. However, the desire to get that coherence was clear to us all.

It was also clear that funding was an issue, specifically when comparing to the funding given in England around water safety, and I am particularly pleased with water safety now being allocated to a specific Minister. It was very clear that that was needed, that we needed that direct leadership on this. It's, of course, another thing to add to the climate change portfolio, but it's very, very important that we have done so.

Felly, Dirprwy Lywydd, I'd like to reiterate my thanks to those who came forward with evidence for all the work that went into this to make our report a reality, and I'll end by saying that this isn't the end of the problem, and that I think it's also incumbent on all of us to be involved in raising awareness around the hazards of open bodies of water. As elected Members, we have a duty to help organisations in our constituencies and regions, as well as the Government, in raising awareness.

I just want to start by explaining my reasons for speaking in this debate today. As Members will know, prior to being elected, I was a teacher, and, in my 16 years as a teacher, each summer we would hold an assembly with Welsh Water where we would outline the dangers of swimming in reservoirs. Each year we did this diligently and we felt secure in the knowledge that we'd done all we could to protect our students. Yet, one summer, we received the devastating news that one of our former pupils, Daniel Clemo, a real character, a fit, strong young man, full of life and vibrancy, had drowned while swimming in a reservoir on a hot sunny day. I know first-hand how this loss devastated Daniel's family and how deeply it shook the community, and I know that we need to do more, much more, to try and prevent such deaths in future. And I'd like to commend the bravery of Mark Allen's family for their tireless work in this area.

Turning to the report itself, I'd like to commend the Petitions Committee for this excellent piece of work. Like many of us, I was shocked by the scale of the challenge—for example, that the number of accidental drowning deaths is higher than the number of fatalities from a range of arguably higher profile causes, and that, in Wales, per head of population, the rate of drowning is double that of the UK average. But perhaps even more chilling was the data around the number of incidents that don't result in deaths. According to Water Safety Wales, over 1,750 water-related incidents each year require an emergency response, and all of those could of course lead to loss of life of those people in danger or, possibly, our emergency services. So, this shows how important it is that, despite personal loss, Leeanne has led this campaign so other families do not suffer.

Turning to the next steps, I'm pleased to see recommendations 3 and 6 in particular. Education and awareness of the danger that bodies of water pose are critical to prevent loss of life. It is right that we try and impress this lesson on our children and young people from an early age, and that we take a lifelong approach to ensure that message is remembered. I'm glad that the Welsh Government has accepted both these recommendations and that work has already been undertaken around reservoir safety and carried out in a way that is relevant and easy to access, so that Mark Allen's legacy can live on and lives can be saved.

Thank you. Sam Rowlands.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and could I thank the Petitions Committee for bringing forward today's important report in front of us here today? And can I also put on record my admiration for the friends and family of Mark, who I know are in the public gallery here today, and applaud their efforts in ensuring that this issue is debated here today in the form of a report?

As already stated by Members across the Chamber, it's extremely concerning that any young person loses their life to drowning in Wales. I understand that around 400 people across the UK actually lose their life through drowning, so it's clear that more needs to be done to see that continued action in preventing these deaths.

I just want to speak, Deputy Presiding Officer, as the chairman of the Senedd's cross-party group on the outdoor activity sector, and, while there is a lot of good in this report, I've been made aware that perhaps there are some missed opportunities amongst the recommendations, and opportunities that the outdoor activity sector would want to have a comment on, especially with their great deal of experience and expertise in this area. And as we know, the report does highlight a number of the challenging issues when it comes to ensuring water spaces are safer places for those who visit and use them, as well as making suggestions to help mitigate some of these issues. But, in terms of the missed opportunity, I understand there hasn't been the consultation with the outdoor activity sector that perhaps could have taken place, and I know it's disappointing to the sector, as they, amongst many people, see water safety as such an important aspect of the work that they do. And they already do a huge amount of work in relation to water safety and campaigns, with things like AdventureSmart Wales, AdventureSmart UK, with their public awareness campaigns, and also their campaigns with around 100 other partners, on a collaborative effort to agree safety messages and share those messages as widely as possible.

And a clear aspect of this debate and report so far is that a lot more work needs to be done in preventing these deaths, and, to achieve this aim, we all must make sure that we're working together, working across sector and across organisations, to ensure that this happens as best as possible. So, whilst I appreciate, Deputy Presiding Officer, that this process is coming to a conclusion in terms of this report, I understand the sector itself would still welcome further discussions in how they could further support the Petitions Committee and relevant bodies in relation to water safety and drowning prevention, and I hope that this offer can be taken up. But I certainly want to thank the committee for their report and the Chairman for presenting it here today. I look forward to further contributions. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Can I thank the committee for bringing this report forward, and once again say it shows the power of the Petitions Committee in bringing really important matters in front of the Senedd, and the facility that we have within this Welsh Parliament, Senedd Cymru, to actually articulate the views of people outside of this Chamber itself? It's a great opportunity to debate this. And, in opening my remarks, I also join others in commending the work of families who have campaigned on these issues. We can't understand the tragedy that they've been through, but we can empathise with it, and it's the fear that many of us have as parents and others, if something like this went wrong.

But, the points that I want to raise, in agreeing with much of what is in the report, some of which I'll pick up from Sam in a moment, who does a commendable job in chairing the cross-party group that focuses on outdoor activities and outdoor education—. Of course, we always look at Wales as a country that is full of outdoor adventure and adrenaline, but we have to do it safely, of course, and there is a body of expertise there, Minister, I think. In fact, Minister, you've appeared with that group before and I'm sure you'll want to draw on the expertise within it in taking forward some of these recommendations, because they do specialise in safety in the outdoors, including water safety, and they'd want to contribute. I know they've made it clear that they'd want to contribute to this work going forward, and, I think, to engage with the Petitions Committee and with the families as well.

There were two specific things that I wanted to pick out of the report that haven't been mentioned extensively in the debate today. One is, in some of the evidence that you gathered, the issue of risk assessment was picked up on. I think that's appropriate. Way back in a previous life, when I was a lecturer, we used to talk about how you manage activity in the outdoors, and we looked at American models like the recreation opportunity spectrum: where you know that you have a high risk, where you have intensive use, where you know that there are going to be youngsters, teenagers, going and canoeing, jumping in, whatever, then you focus your intensive signage and you focus your throw lines and you focus them into those areas, and you make sure they're there. But, there's a difference between that and the top hills of Plynlimon, where there might indeed be an open-water source, and there might indeed be people who go free swimming, but it would seem incongruous to put signage and so on there. So, that idea of risk assessment, site-specific assessment, I think, is very important.

The other thing is to actually pull partners together in taking forward these proposals. We want Wales to be celebrated as a place where you can safely enjoy the outdoors, but I think that aspiration of Water Safety Wales and others to rule out fatalities in these situations is the right aspiration, but we need to think carefully how we do this and we bring partners with real knowledge together to do it.

I call on the Minister for Climate Change. Julie James.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd, and thank you very much to Jack for bringing forward the debate and giving me the opportunity to speak about water safety and drowning prevention.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I'd just like to start, as you'd expect me to, by offering my deepest sympathies to Mark Allen's family and to anyone else in Wales who has been affected by drowning incidents, because they are, as Vikki Howells said, absolutely devastating, and they devastate not only the families but the communities around those families as well. We really need to be very aware of that. I also want to thank the campaigners who have contributed their time and provided valuable comments to inform the report and for their continued awareness raising, which I think is particularly brave in the circumstances of the tragedy of losing a son, a friend, and a member of your community.

I also want to thank all the members of the Petitions Committee for the production of the 'Mark Allen’s Law: Water safety and drowning prevention' report because it's a very good report indeed and I'm very pleased to be able to accept the recommendations therein.

As the report highlights, there are still too many water-related instances occurring in Wales. The recommendations in the report will enhance Wales's drowning prevention strategy, which was published in December 2020 by Water Safety Wales.

I just want to talk a little bit about that, because various contributions today are absolutely right: we do need to pull the various sectors together here, because this is about water safety, of course, but it is also about encouraging people to use our great outdoors in the right way and in the right circumstances. It's a well-known fact that I'm a very, very keen cold-water wild-water swimmer, and I'm very, very happy to extol the virtues of that kind of swimming. I only wish I'd had the chance to do it while I've had this cold, because I feel sure it would have helped me throw it off, which might seem counterintuitive to people, but actually there are real benefits that it brings to you if you can get into the water. I just extol it. I'm not quite as enthusiastic as the dawn people in Penarth, who go out to greet each day with a dip in the sea, but I'm very fond, nevertheless, of those kinds of activities.

But all the more the reason to make sure that the tragedy that brought about the report today doesn't happen, and there are a number of things that we can do there. We can do the things that the report sets out in terms of education and awareness, we can do the things about the signage, we can do the things about throw lines, but we can't do those everywhere. As Huw has said, there will be areas in Wales that are just not suitable for that. So, what we also need to do is raise awareness of where it is safe to go wild swimming, and why it can be a real problem, particularly on a hot day, to dive into cold water. And again, counterintuitively, it's worse on a hot day to do it than it is on a cold day, because of the extreme change in body temperature.

I call on Jack Sargeant to reply to the debate.

Diolch yn fawr, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I thank all Members for their contributions today, particularly Vikki Howells, who spoke about the devastating impact of losing her student, Daniel, and the devastating impact on the community and wider community that had? Just touching on Huw Irranca-Davies and Sam Rowlands, as the Minister has said there, I too will be keen to work. I think I've already put on the record in a committee that I will meet with the outdoor activity sector cross-party group to discuss the report and perhaps where we can take that further.

My thanks to Luke Fletcher and Joel James, again highlighting the importance of the evidence that we received in putting this report together, but also I think Luke was suggesting that this is just one more step in the right direction for campaigners like Leeanne, and we all have a duty, whether we're in Government or Members of the Senedd, to publish and promote those messages. Minister, I'm extremely grateful to you and your officials for engaging and accepting this report and agreeing with this report in the way that you have.

Just to conclude, Deputy Presiding Officer, I can see time is up, but I do want to pay one final tribute, just this last time to Leeanne Bartley, her husband David, and everyone who signed this petition and who helped us along the way. This again demonstrates the importance of the Senedd Petitions Committee, and I would encourage everyone who wants to change policy to consider signing or submitting a petition. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

The proposal is to note the committee's report. Does any Member object? No, and the motion is therefore agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Item 8, debate on the Climate Change, Environment, and Infrastructure Committee report, 'Report on operation of the interim environmental protection measures'. I call on the Chair of the committee to move the motion. Llyr Gruffydd.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. At the start of the sixth Senedd, the committee agreed to scrutinise the ongoing operation of the interim environmental protection measures that we have here in Wales. Members will recall, I'm sure, that these measures were put in place to address widespread concern about the impending environmental governance gap in Wales following the UK's departure from the European Union. The measures provide a mechanism for the public to submit complaints to an independent interim environmental protection assessor about the functioning of environmental law. Having considered any such complaints, the interim assessor then can recommend the Minister takes action, with a view to making improvements to the law. Our report covers the first full year of the operation of the interim measures and was informed by evidence from key environmental stakeholders and from Dr Nerys Llewelyn Jones, the interim assessor, who appeared before us in June of this year.

As a committee, we made eight recommendations, two to the interim assessor and six to the Welsh Government. They were all accepted in full, so we'd like to thank the Minister and the interim assessor for their positive responses. Although it's still early days for the interim assessor service, we are, and we were indeed, encouraged by how much it has achieved in its first year, and with limited capacity and limited resources as well, actually. While the service has experienced some teething problems, by and large it's managed to overcome these. But there's still room for improvement, of course, as is reflected in our report.

The interim measures fulfil an important function and could, potentially, help improve the working of environmental law. But, of course, they're a far cry from the EU's environmental governance system. This is in no way a criticism of the interim assessor’s performance or the work of the service to date. It is, however, a criticism of the Welsh Government for failing to prioritise legislation in order to establish a fully functioning, well-resourced oversight body for Wales.

As we wait with growing impatience for legislation to be brought forward, all other UK nations now have statutory oversight bodies up and running. Although they might not be perfect, these bodies provide key governance functions of compliance and enforcement, and uphold citizens' rights to access environmental justice. So, Minister, do Wales's citizens not deserve the same? I'm sure they do, and I'm sure you will agree, and I'm sure you will elaborate when you respond. But we cannot have Wales's reputation downgraded from a nation that puts the environment and sustainable development at its heart to one with the weakest environmental governance structures in western Europe.

Now, the Minister has confirmed that the interim assessor's appointment has been extended for a year, up until February 2024. It would be unthinkable for a statutory oversight body not to be in place before then. But, with just over a year to go, and with no evidence of any real progress towards the development of legislative proposals, the feeling is that it isn't looking promising. So, the interim measures seemingly will be in place longer than expected, and, for many, longer than is acceptable. That said, it's important to make the very best out of what we have, and our recommendations in our report were made with this, of course, in mind.

So, briefly then, recommendations 2 and 3 aim to improve public awareness of the service and increase transparency in its work. And we're pleased to hear that the interim assessor has already made progress in taking these forward.

Turning to our recommendations for the Welsh Government, recommendation 5 calls for an urgent review of the resources available to the interim assessor, reflecting on the high demand for the service and the need to deliver timely outputs in the form of reports. The Minister has accepted this recommendation, which is very much a good start. As made clear in our report, the review must be completed sooner rather than later. Hopefully, Minister, you can give us an indication of how this work is progressing as you respond to this debate.

Moving on to the process of dealing with reports by the interim assessor, we’re concerned that this lacks clarity. While we acknowledge the Welsh Government is under no obligation to formally respond to the assessor’s reports and recommendations, it really must commit to doing this. We consider a clearly defined process is essential to ensure transparency, to strengthen accountability and to build public confidence, of course, in the interim measures. Recommendations 6 and 7 in our report address this issue.

Finally, we asked the Welsh Government to explain how it’s monitoring the effectiveness of the interim measures, including their impact on environmental outcomes. The short answer is that it’s not. So, Minister, how will you know what success looks like unless suitable monitoring arrangements are in place to measure it?

Members will see that our recommendations are very much about fine tuning the interim measures to ensure they are the best they can be. But we are clear that no matter how effective these measures may be, they are no substitute for a permanent environmental oversight body. We'll continue, of course, to press the Welsh Government on this issue throughout the remainder of this Senedd term. Diolch.

I take my hat off to our Chairman, Llyr Gruffydd, for saying what needed to be said—that the interim assessor does not fulfil the role at all of the kind of environmental governance that we need here in Wales.

I'm pleased that the Welsh Government has chosen to accept all eight recommendations contained within the report—I guess I'd have been surprised if you hadn't. I do note that the interim assessor has promised that in relation to recommendation 3, she will publish updates on the service's rolling work programme on a quarterly basis. I also note that recommendations 6 and 7 state that the Welsh Government should commit to publishing responses to interim assessor reports no later than six weeks following receipt and that the Senedd should be notified by a written statement. I for one certainly look forward to that timetable being upheld.

Certainly, during the evidence session, in my recollection—I can remember it distinctly—it became very clear to me that this role doesn't fulfil at all the level of environmental governance that is required. There needs to be this prioritisation of legislation. To be fair to the interim assessor, in her own words, she felt it wasn't her role to deal with complaints. She felt that there were certain things that she shouldn't get involved with—resource issues. I just feel that, really, the role of the interim assessor has been more of a tick-box exercise for the Welsh Government.

We need a permanent framework here in Wales, especially on a subject that's so important to Wales. Dr Llewelyn Jones reported that demand on the service had been greater than anticipated during the first year, with 21 submissions received, covering a wide range of different environmental issues. According to the annual report 2021-22, this clearly demonstrates that there is a high degree of public engagement with the subject of environmental protection and that there's an appetite in Wales to ensure that the law protects the environment here.

RSPB Cymru commented that the number of submissions indicates that there is a significant concern in Wales regarding the implementation of environmental law. There have also been issues with the website. Members of the environmental sector wrote to the First Minister on this with representatives criticising the interim assessor's website, even, as not easily navigable or even easy to find. RSPB Cymru said that finding the relevant Welsh Government webpage depends on people knowing what to look for online. So, Minister, could you give us some reassurances today that those matters have been addressed and that anybody wanting to seek out the interim assessor can do so? Representatives of the environmental sector also expressed frustration regarding the lack of progress towards developing the new arrangements.

Janet, you've used your time now.

In summary, this Welsh Government still has a long way to go in providing reassurance to the environmental sector with the leadership, the direction and certainty that they need. For the sake of future generations, we urgently need a proper framework in place. Diolch.

I won't repeat points that have been made by other Members, but I just want to thank the Chair and colleagues on the committee for the session that they held with the interim assessor, and also to thank the interim assessor as well for coming in front of us and for the evidence that she gave. There's only one significant point of difference that I take with Janet on this, because we did hear in evidence that this isn't a useless role, that there is actually value in it. In fact, Annie Smith of RSPB Cymru said:

'It's not an invalid or invaluable role—it's just completely different, and it is not anything equivalent to having access to environmental justice.'

That goes to the heart of Llyr's comment and also Janet's as well. It may be an interim measure, but it's not unvaluable—it genuinely isn't. And in fact, our report pointed at that and some of the achievements in the period of the interim assessor's role. But I do want to turn to that issue of the governance gap and how we're going to fill it, without repeating in detail some of the points that have been made already.

The governance gap was a key issue for many of the people who gave evidence to the committee. In welcoming the fact that the Government has actually accepted all of the recommendations, our recommendations were based very much on the interim assessor's current role, et cetera, et cetera, and we kept looking, as did all our stakeholders who gave evidence to us, 'Yes, but what comes next and when does it actually arrive?' That's really what I want to focus my attention on.

There is an assumption that we've made on the committee, which is pulled out actually in our conclusions. It doesn't turn to the recommendations, because the recommendations are very much focused on the current interim assessor role. But in our conclusions, we point very clearly to an assumption that you will have to reappoint the interim assessor, because it's running out of time, and we don't have a new body to come forward to actually give us that environmental justice, citizens' justice role there. So, it would be good to get that clarity today, but then to also get that clarity that during that period, if you are going to reappoint for an extension, we will see the proposals brought forward.

Minister, I don't share the scepticism—that perhaps has been a little bit expressed by other colleagues—that you don't want to do this. I know you do want to do this; I know that there is legislative pressure—we get that as well—but the fact is, in our observation as a committee, we've got an assessor that was set up for two years on an interim basis; we're going to have to extend it. Are we going to see the proposal for the new governance structure on environmental law brought forward in that timescale? If not, are we going to reappoint again?

This subject, at first, if someone sees it just written on a piece of paper what we're going to be talking about, may seem dry and technical, but in fact, all of the richness of our natural world is contained in it. Without robust and proper environmental protection, all of us will be impoverished in ways probably that we can't even begin to imagine.

The context of this has been well rehearsed already by other members of the committee. I would, of course, add my thanks to the committee Chair and to the fantastic committee team and to the interim assessor. I know that it's going to be difficult for the interim assessor maybe hearing some of this, but I would just add to the point that's already been made: this is in no way a criticism of anyone who's actually fulfilling this function at present, it's about the situation that's got us to where we're at, and real problems and our unhappiness about how that's been handled.

Wales's loss of rights relating to EU environmental law, that old framework that allowed us to hold corporations and Governments to account for damaging the natural world, has been because of Brexit. Brexit has many casualties; we have lost so much. The same robustness that we had under that old framework has to be a bare minimum—it has to be replicated in Welsh law. I'm afraid that because of the inaction of the Welsh Government on this since the transition period, we are in a really damaging situation.

As has been rehearsed already, this is a devolved area. The Environment (Wales) Act 2016 and the well-being of future generations Act provide the legal framework for environmental protection. The measures that we have at the moment were meant as a stopgap. Concerns were raised even at the time about how the threshold for seriousness would be met in terms of what infringements should be escalated when they were reported. Concerns were raised again at the time about the non-statutory basis of the arrangements, and this was even the case before the role had been diluted. But we're in 2022 now; that stopgap arrangement is ongoing, and it's also been downgraded. The interim assessor can only oversee the functioning of environmental law, so they can see what the issues are, but they have very limited ability to do anything about it. Our committee—as has been said already—has considered many of these difficulties, and the fact that at the moment, there doesn't seem to be any end in sight to this interim period. I really would urge the Government to prioritise this area as much as possible, because of the uncertainty that it is creating.

Citizens at present don't have a clear or accessible way of holding Government or polluters to account. I take the point that the Government has said that judicial review mechanisms are an interim means of escalating infringements of environmental law, but judicial review is outside the means of most ordinary people, and it also goes against the principle, again, which is set out in EU law, that all citizens should have equal and available access to environmental justice. It's not clear how environmental protections can therefore be enforced. As Wales Environment Link have said, and I'm quoting their words,

Thank you to the Chair, to all committee members and the interim assessor—I can't remember what the Welsh term for that is, I'm sorry.

I don't want to, and I won't, reiterate any of the points that my colleagues have already made, but it's important, at this stage, to thank the clerks, the Chair and the clerking team for assisting us in our work. I think there is an issue here beyond governance, and it's an issue of capacity. The report of the interim assessor highlights that demand on the service was greater than that which was anticipated. Of course, that's to be welcomed, because it does show that the Welsh public are engaged and concerned about the protection of our natural heritage and environment. And going forward, that is a good thing.

I remember when I was first elected to this Chamber, I was involved in the case of the Burry inlet that I know the Minister is familiar with, and where the European Court of Justice ultimately ruled that the UK breached laws over sewage and waste water. It was complicated, it was contested and it was a drawn-out affair, and it did, indeed, demonstrate the need for an independent body to rule on these matters.

What I ask is that, while the structure is being built, it might be worth considering beefing up the interim measures that the Welsh Government has currently in place. It wouldn't, of course, confer the legal powers that an environmental governance body must have, but it would ensure a stronger voice and a wider reach for their interim assessor's office to respond to the public concerns about how we protect our forests, waterways, hedgerows and anything else that needs protecting. So, I just ask, Minister, if you would consider those areas. Thank you.

The Minister for Climate Change, Julie James.

Diolch, Llywydd. I too would like to begin by thanking the committee and Chair for their work and for the recent report on the interim environmental governance arrangements. I think the committee's report is well considered and balanced, and I'm very pleased to confirm that the Government accepts all of its recommendations.

I would also like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to Dr Nerys Llewelyn Jones for the valuable work that she has done as the interim environmental protection assessor for Wales over the last 20 months. I am particularly pleased with how she has reached out to a broad range of stakeholders to facilitate important conversations about the functioning of environmental law in Wales. One of the most important aspects of the interim assessor role is being a champion of robust environmental protection measures—an element of her role where Dr Llewelyn Jones, I think everyone would agree, has absolutely excelled.

Over the past months, the interim assessor has hosted a number of stakeholder events aimed at gathering evidence on important environmental issues in Wales. These include hosting a panel discussion on the legal protection of hedgerows and a recent stakeholder round-table on the protected sites legislation in Wales. I very much look forward to seeing the recommendations resulting from these conversations, and just to confirm, Llyr, that we absolutely will be responding to them in the normal way.

So, in light of the important work that she has been undertaking, I am pleased to confirm that the Welsh Government will be extending Dr Llewelyn Jones's contract for a further year, and I'm particularly pleased that it is Dr Llewelyn Jones. We're not just extending the role, but we're extending her role in it, and I think that's a very important point to make.

The committee's report made a number of recommendations to the Welsh Government, and there is indeed a lot of work to do to ensure that we deliver on them. In particular, we will be looking to undertake a review of the interim measures. The aims of the review will be to evaluate the effectiveness of the arrangements, to ascertain whether current levels of resourcing are sufficient and to inform the development of a permanent environmental governance body. We will bring forward the details of that review in due course. I'm sure that Llyr will invite me to a committee session to grill me on it, and I'm very happy to keep the Senedd informed by statement as well, Llywydd.

The Welsh Government does recognise the pressure that the interim assessor has faced since her appointment, due to the high demand for the service. We will need to consider very carefully whether the interim assessor has the resources needed to carry out the intended functions effectively, and what we will need to do to ensure that she does have those resources. In the meantime, the interim assessor's secretariat team has been working with her to identify the best way to do this, and this includes commissioning external support from academics and legal professionals for her reports. We hope this will result in fewer demands being made on the interim assessor's own time, allowing her to devote it to finalising her reports.

It is worth noting as well, as pretty much everyone who's contributed has done, that there were a high number of cases received last year and very much an unexpected spike during November and December. But, since then, demand for the service has actually gone back to where the predicted demand levels were, with only four submissions being received since 1 March 2022. We just need to ensure that the resources are tailored to be able to cope with spikes, but also not sitting around twiddling their thumbs if the level is back. So, there's a little bit of work to do there.

In the committee's report, there were a number of recommendations for the assessor, as Llyr and others have noted, and they were related to raising awareness of the service and transparency around her work. And, as stated in our response to the report, we are providing the interim assessor with the support that she requires to deliver on those recommendations. We're very keen for her to be able to do so. And that includes taking steps to ensure that the webpages are much more accessible and exploring how better use can be made of social media channels to publicise the work, both of which I'm sure the committee will be pleased about. I'm also aware that the interim assessor has been taking steps to publish quarterly updates on her webpages to highlight how her work is progressing. This is a really positive development, and I am glad to see the action being taken so quickly in response to the committee's recommendations.

Will the Minister give way?

Sorry, go on, Huw.

I thank the Minister for giving way. Whilst we hate delay, one of the advantages is that we can look not only at Conference of the Parties 15 now, but also at what has happened elsewhere in the UK. Janet made the point that, yes, there are other governance structures that have been put in place in the UK, but they haven't been without criticism. So, if you can also give us the guarantee that you'll have a look at those, and when you come in front of the committee, we'll ask you questions about how you've learnt from them as well.

Absolutely, Huw, I was coming on to say exactly that. We want those targets to be meaningful and stretching. We want them to be achievable, though. There's no point in having targets and everybody goes, 'Oh well, you'll never do that'. We need them to be realistic and achievable targets, where we can protect 30 per cent of our land, freshwater and seas by 2030. That's not very far away, so we need to get these targets right and we need to get them to be meaningful.

We have got positive collaborative working relationships already with the Office for Environmental Protection and Environmental Standards Scotland, as well as counterparts in the UK and Scottish Governments. We absolutely will be learning the lessons from what they have already done as we develop permanent environmental governance arrangements that reflect our policies and our legislative context here in Wales.

So, I will say this to all of the Members who've contributed to this and to the members of the committee: I am sorry to be last. I didn't want there to be a gap; would that we could prevent that from having happened. But, there are some merits in it as well. We will be able to set these targets, we will be able to ensure that they are meaningful, we will be able to do the learning from what's happened elsewhere in the UK and we will get the interim assessor's seriously good input into how we construct this. I'm sure that the committee will help us construct the very best legislation that we can. I assure you that we will be bringing it forward; I am absolutely determined to do so. I just want to conclude by thanking the committee and Chair once again for their very valuable work and their continued positive engagement with this issue. Diolch.

The committee Chair to reply—Llyr Gruffydd.

Thank you very much, Llywydd, and thank you to everyone who's contributed to the debate. A particular thanks to the Minister for her positive response in responding to the debate, which was also reflected in the fact that the recommendations have been accepted in full, and we appreciate that.

I'm going to say this in a positive way—please don't think I'm trying to make a broader point—but having a Brexiteer bemoan the loss of EU environmental governance and EU environmental protections should be seen as a positive thing, Minister, because we are where we are—you know, we're not revisiting that—but it shows that there's political unanimity behind you in moving on this. Maybe Government should have been awake to that earlier on and maybe had more confidence in moving sooner, because, of course, we've known for many, many years that this would need to be done. It isn't just now that we're coming to the conclusion that we need a permanent body; we've known for three, four or five years.

Yes, there have been circumstances that have militated against the actions that many of us—yourself included, I'm sure, Minister—would have liked to have seen, and I accept, a well, the point made about, 'Actually, let's make that work, then, in our favour; let's learn the lessons and use the opportunity to incorporate other things that, maybe, we would have been oblivious to at that point'. So, I appreciate that the question isn't whether the Government, or any of us, want to move on this, it's 'When are we going to do it?' When are we finally going to get going on this and get it over the line?

Would the Chair give way?

Yes, I will, of course.

I simply rise to join him in his acclamation of our committee colleague, Janet, because having that unanimity genuinely is a significant moment—it really is. If we're all agreed, across the Senedd Chamber, on the highest possible environmental governance and regulations to protect us, putting aside Brexit or whatever, my goodness, that's a good place to go forward behind the Minister. So, well done, Janet, as well as the Chair.

Yes, there we are. Well done. And that'll be on the record forever.

And you'll have to stick at it.

Yes. Thank you very much for that. [Laughter.] I think the point made by Huw, actually—interim, yes; invaluable, no. We do want to say a hearty 'thank you' to the interim assessor for the work that she is doing. It is very much appreciated.

It's an important point: we're not criticising the assessor here—to the contrary, in light of the capacity and the resources available to her, she is doing as much as we could expect and more, so we thank her for that.

But I just want to conclude by saying that of course we as a committee will continue to scrutinise and be dissatisfied until we see legislation coming forward, and, of course, as part of that process,we will play a full part in ensuring that what we have at the end of the process will be as robust and muscular and effective and efficient as it can possibly be.

I also want to echo my thanks to the assessor, but also to committee members for their work, to the stakeholders who contributed to the work, and also to our clerking team, who have been very supportive and a great support to us in undertaking this work. My thanks will be even greater to the Minister when we finally see legislation brought forward to this place. Thank you.

The proposal is to note the committee's report. Does any Member object? No. The motion is therefore agreed.

Before we move to the next two debates, I want to reiterate comments that I made last week and remind Members that, where opposition groups use the time allocated to them to table two motions for 30-minute debates, guidance states that contributions during the debate should be limited to three minutes. I know Members can become frustrated by that fact. I'm going to ask the Business Committee, therefore, to revisit speaking times relative to the length of a debate and whether the use of 30-minute debates provides the Senedd with sufficient time to consider what are often significant topics. [Members of the Senedd: 'Hear, hear.'] We'll review this as a Business Committee early in the new year, and I've noted all your cheers on that basis, and I'll remember that.

So, thank you, therefore.

We'll move on now to item 9.

Item 9 is the debate on an independent review of children's social care, and I call on Gareth Davies to move the motion.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Llywydd, and I move this motion today, tabled in the name of my colleague Darren Millar. I'd like to start my contribution today by putting again on the record my extended thoughts and condolences to Logan Mwangi's father Ben, his family, friends, school and social network in Bridgend. There's nothing we can say or do that can take away the pain and sadness they must be feeling at this difficult time and in the future, and nothing can deflect away from the pure evil and brutality of the disgusting individuals who carried out this sustained period of abuse to Logan, ending up in his murder. I'm pleased that the correct level of justice was applied to the three perpetrators and that they are serving at His Majesty's pleasure.

The death of a child, especially in the circumstances of Logan Mwangi, is a tragedy that we must never forget. Equally, such a tragedy requires the efforts of the Welsh Government to ensure that it can never happen again. We owe it to Logan, his family and to every child in Wales to hold a nationwide review of children's social services in Wales and ensure that our children are not let down because they live in Wales.

Wales has the UK's highest rate of looked-after children, so it's imperative that this Government shows leadership. After months of the First Minister blocking a review, the Welsh Conservatives are once again calling for him to use the tools available to him to put children first in Wales. Reviews such as these do work, and help to ensure that never again means never again. They will not stop the tragic murder of children, unfortunately, but they do ensure that lessons are learned and preventative measures can be taken earlier on to safeguard children.

In England, the review into the murders of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes and Star Hobson prioritised what went wrong, why it happened, and what can be done to prevent a repeat of such events. Eight recommendations were put forward, so the UK Government has a clear guide on where to improve. In Scotland, periodic reviews by the Care Inspectorate have been the central guide for case reviews, and regularly provide recommendations to the Scottish Government. Equally, in February, Northern Ireland launched a review of children's social care services. So, why are Welsh children being left out when every other UK administration is taking responsibility? This is vital, because the death of Logan Mwangi proved that concerns about dangers of dependency on agency workers was putting children's safety at risk, and the command structure in the NHS that leaves junior staff unable to challenge senior colleagues, and that proves to be a threat.

If this review does not go ahead, the people of Wales will want to know why, once again, the Labour Government blocks scrutiny into their management of the NHS. Power over health should mean the Government takes responsibility, but, as we have seen recently, this is not the case, and this leads me to ask: is the Government worried about what the review will find? So, finally, I urge all Members of the Senedd to support our motion without amendment today. Thank you.

I have selected the amendment to the motion, and I call on the Deputy Minister for Social Services to move formally that amendment.

Formally.

Thank you. The amendment is moved. Heledd Fychan.

Thank you, Llywydd, and thank you to the Conservatives for bringing this debate forward today.

A key commitment within the programme for government is to explore radical reform of current services for looked-after children and care leavers. I believe it's absolutely essential that there is a review of children's social care in Wales, and I'm supporting this without agreeing to the amendment today. I think it is crucial. We've rehearsed the reasons why, tragically, as was highlighted by Gareth Davies, after reflecting on the content of the report and the tragic death of Logan Mwangi, but crucially, for us, this is not about party politics. It is about listening to those that have the experience of listening to social workers, that had in their manifesto for 2021 election that this was something that they believed needed to happen.

Also, I do not accept the point that any kind of review would delay changes coming into action. It is about looking at the system as a whole, and this is absolutely essential, because we know that the facts and figures do speak for themselves. And it was extremely concerning to hear the Children's Commissioner for Wales in her response saying we've seen these kinds of recommendations before. So, what reassurances are we able to give? We know that there's a huge strain on social services staff and all those agencies involved as well, and that things are only likely to worsen. We know how affected local authorities are already by austerity, and how they will be as a result of the cost-of-living crisis and the impact on local authority budgets.

So, it is a serious situation, because, as is evident, it is children and young people at the end of the day that will suffer, and it is essential that we do everything within our power to ensure that those who need support are able to be supported, and that we don't have tragic headlines again, and are yet again here in the Senedd expressing our concern and support for recommendations. Reviews are positive, in my view. They are not things to be feared, and it is crucial that we actually do take the opportunity to learn lessons as a whole. As I said, we are working together to look at areas of reform, but a review will give us that consistency in terms of that overall picture.

The First Minister, Mark Drakeford, has identified reducing care rates in Wales as a priority of the Welsh Government, and rightly so. We know that the outcomes for children and young people in care is a particular concern, and the fact that the rate of children looked after in Wales is now higher than at any time since the 1980s is something that should be hugely concerning. Therefore, we believe in Plaid Cymru that an independent review into children's social care will provide us the opportunity to fill the gaps in children's social care currently, gaps that we know exist and will only worsen if Welsh Government do not act promptly. We need to lay the foundation to ensure every child is safe from harm, and, to do this, child protection must be made a priority, and we also support the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Wales's calls in this area, and thank again the Conservatives for tabling this motion.

I'd like to thank my colleague Gareth Davies for bringing forward this hugely important, timely debate. As an MS whose region covers the Bridgend county borough, these discussions are doubly important to my constituents, constituents who are deeply troubled by the events leading up to and surrounding the tragic murder of Logan Mwangi. Gareth has already outlined the terrible timeline of Logan's death. However, it is important to note that the failings of Bridgend social services predated this case. Long before Logan's murder, there were concerns about children's services in Bridgend County Borough Council. In 2017, a Western Mail investigation uncovered a shocking number of children missing from care. Bridgend social services did not know where these vulnerable children were. The department recorded 385 missing incidents, relating to 60 individual children. But, worst of all, they said their data only covered the period since July 2015, as the authority did not begin capturing information on missing children in a consistent way until then. It is little wonder that, in the years that followed, Care Inspectorate Wales have issued a number of critical reports into Bridgend social services. At various times, CIW have found that workforce pressures have led to episodes of children going missing and children at risk of exploitation in the Bridgend area; that a lack of appropriate action had been taken in a timely way to mitigate risk to children; that the inspectorate could not be confident that children on the child protection register, or in the care system, were visited by social workers frequently enough.

I want to make it clear that I am not criticising the front-line workforce; they're doing an incredible job under extreme pressure. But they're being let down by the leadership at all levels from within the department, the council and the Welsh Government—a failure of leadership that left children's services understaffed and overstretched—[Interruption.] Sorry. Yes.

My apologies. I hadn't intended to speak in this debate, but I've read the report in great detail, and there are definitely criticisms of Bridgend social services. There's also observation, from the care inspectorate, that measures have been taken already to respond to those. What there is also criticism of is many other agencies, including the inability of nursing staff in Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board to challenge authority above that. I listened to the previous debate on this as well, and found that was not being raised, so can we comprehensively look at the contributory factors? Because I think Ben Mwangi, in Logan's memory, deserves the whole picture of this, not just focusing on one stakeholder within this. Criticism as there was, there was a wide range of failures.

Thank you very much. Thanks.

—the tragic result of which allowed a young boy to be murdered by the very people supposed to look after and nurture him. The Deputy Minister has said that lessons will be learned from this tragedy, but I'm not convinced that they will, or that the same thing is not going to happen in other local authorities in my region or across Wales. The only way we can truly learn from this tragedy and ensure nothing like it ever happens again is to hold a root-and-branch inquiry into social services. Only then can people in Bridgend and across this nation be confident that children's social care is fit for purpose. Thank you very much.

Many of you know that I've worked in child protection for around 25 years, and I did work during the COVID period. And I would like to be clear that, in terms of my reading of the report on Logan Mwangi, I cannot see any reason that the COVID restrictions at the time would not have had—in terms of potentially saving his life. I think it's really important I put that on record, because it is easy to hold that responsible. But, in my experience, it was far, far more than the COVID period.

I do welcome and thank the Conservatives for this debate, and I know that we have the same views across three political parties here in the Siambr. I do also welcome the Minister's commitment to childcare and child protection, and that there have been many innovations from the Welsh Government. But this is about getting the basics right, and the basics for me are making sure that our children across Wales have the best chance to be safe and protected. I want to make it clear: we can never, ever eliminate children being hurt or dying, sadly, but we can make them safer, and that's what this review is calling for. There is a real, clear issue here in terms of language. For me, it's not an investigation; it's a review. It's a review where we can learn, where we can understand the issues.

Let me tell you, I've been involved in these over the time I've been a social worker, a service manager and a senior leader in child protection. Nobody likes them. Nobody wants them. But we do them because we think it's best for our children, and we do them in order to learn. They can be very positive. As you've heard, they can be opportunities for us to share good practice, and, for the children of Wales, surely that's what we want.

As Senedd Members in this Siambr, I'll tell you, I have no idea how our children's services across Wales are performing in child protection. I'll give you some concrete examples. Care Inspectorate Wales, who are responsible for inspecting services, recent reports from Wrexham and Denbighshire, actually, are very, very hard to interpret how they're performing in child protection. But if you look at Ofsted in England, the latest one from Kent says straight away how they are performing in child protection. Now, I think we should have that here as members of our communities, but also as Senedd Members. We should know how our children are being protected across Wales.

My final point is that this is a proposal for a review. This is about listening to people, listening to those working at the front line across all of the services. I do take Huw Irranca-Davies's point there: it is about working and listening to all of those professionals, because there were issues in Logan's situation. My question to you, Deputy Minister, is: if now isn't the time for a national review, following the really tragic death of Logan Mwangi, with growing numbers of children in care, with the care system at breaking point, huge vacancies in parts of our country, when is the time? Thank you. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

The Deputy Minister for Social Services. Julie Morgan.

Diolch. I'll start by thanking the Welsh Conservatives for bringing forward this motion today, and also by thanking the Members for their contributions to the debate. I mean, this is such an important topic, and I know this is something where the concern is shared across the whole of the Chamber.

Welsh Ministers are committed to protecting and supporting the health and well-being of all children and young people in Wales, and the murder of Logan has quite rightly prompted discussion and focus on child protection in Wales. That's why I delivered an oral statement in Plenary last week, following the publication of the child practice review, arising from what is a very shocking event.

As part of my oral statement, I reiterated that I was convinced that now is not the time for an independent review of children's services in Wales, and I do remain of this view. And whilst Members have continued to call for a review, the argument to conduct such a review has simply not been made, in the Government's view. I know that Members have referred to the fact that other parts of the UK have done so, but I think there's no reason for us to do it just because other parts of the UK have had reviews. Services and structures in England and Scotland are different—

Will you take an intervention?

—and the need for a review elsewhere doesn't amount to the case for a review here.

Just on that one, Minister, you say, 'Why should we do it because everybody else is doing it?', well, that's the reason we should be doing it, in fact, because if Scotland, England and Northern Ireland are conducting their own, they obviously see the need and the value of actually having those reviews in order to see which local authorities are actually going wrong. And, across Wales, we could actually have the chance to see the 22 local authorities across Wales and see where the pitfalls would be and make sure nobody slips through the net again. So, can you see the value in that, Minister?

I mean, we're obviously looking very closely at the reviews, and we've looked at the review carried out by Josh MacAlister in England, and many of the conclusions that he comes to are things that we are already doing here. So, we're certainly looking at what other reviews are doing, and that's causing part of our thinking. But, just to reiterate, our approach in Wales is rights based, unlike elsewhere in the UK, from the appointment of the Children's Commissioner for Wales, first established under the Care Standards Act 2000, to the Rights of Children and Young Persons (Wales) Measure 2011, which sets out our commitment in Wales to children's rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and more recently to the Children (Abolition of Defence of Reasonable Punishment) (Wales) Act 2020 and the removal of the defence of reasonable punishment. Wales has taken a distinctive, progressive and highly successful approach to promoting the welfare and well-being of our children and young people.

Similarly, the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 provides us with mechanisms to support safeguarding arrangements that are not replicated elsewhere. For example, the Act established the national independent safeguarding board, which is now in its second term. The legislation enabled the creation of the whole-Wales safeguarding procedures, implemented in 2019. So, our approach has been strategic for a number of years, and, of course, we have kept our services under constant review. And we do have the evidence to take us forward. As I said last week, I gave you all examples of all the reports and things that we have done to look into this type of situation.

Will the Minister take an intervention?

Yes, certainly.

Sorry. Thank you so much. Is it not the case though that there has not been a review in Wales of child protection services? I do hear there have been reviews of looked-after children and of care-experienced children, but what we're talking about here is a review of child protection services. So, can you tell me when there was a review of child protection services—maybe I've missed it—because I think that's so important? Thank you. Diolch.

I think I did respond to you when you raised a similar question in the oral statement last week, that we have already agreed that there will four joint reviews between the different inspection bodies of child protection procedures over the next two years. So, I think I did tell you that when I responded before.

But we have done a lot of reviews, and I will repeat them: the thematic reports of the Wales Centre for Public Policy concerning looked-after children; the work during the last Senedd term of the improving outcomes for children ministerial advisory group; the Public Law Working Group's report and recommendations to safely divert children away from becoming subjects of public law proceedings; the 'Care Crisis Review'; and the Nuffield Foundation's 'Born into Care'. And this research, in addition to the findings of reviews carried out elsewhere—the ones that Gareth Davies referred to—have informed our priorities, and we already have a clear plan for radical reform of children's services in Wales that builds on almost 25 years of experience since devolution, and we do know that the challenges must be addressed.

This is what we're already doing: preventive interventions for families with children on the edge of care, including parental advocacy services; family group conferencing; family justice reform; and a national practice framework. The establishment of a national care framework for social care and a national office provides the vehicle for transformation with nationally commissioned services, and the development of a single, unified, safeguarding review will be a means to conduct one single review following serious incidents, enabling reviews to be conducted more quickly, avoiding duplication of multiple reviews, and enabling the identification and implementation of learning on a pan-Wales basis.

Also, I did say in my oral statement last week that the additional actions are being taken forward. CIW have agreed to undertake a rapid review of structures and processes in place to inform decisions about how a child is added to or removed from a child protection register. It's been agreed that a task and finish group will be established under the Wales safeguarding procedures project board to consider the existing legislation, guidance and procedures to ensure that these provide the right information required to fulfil their duties.

We're certainly not uninformed, and we are not complacent, and we will always be responsive to new evidence. So, all those things are going on, and we have accepted the five national recommendations, which will include considerable input from the Welsh Government in taking forward those five national recommendations, and the health board has already set about commissioning an independent review of the way that they conduct safeguarding procedures. But we know that this a very, very important issue, and that's why I've made it clear that I expect action to be taken quickly by all relevant agencies to address the learning themes and recommendations identified from the child practice review arising from Logan's death.

I don't think you have time. I've been very generous with your time, Minister, and I'll equally be generous to the closer of the debate.

Yes, I know. I'll be very quick. I'll finish now.

I know that there are enormous challenges here in Wales, but we know what they are and we are acting on them. A review now would delay us in taking forward our plans, would divert resources, and I think would be of dubious practical value. As I said before, if I thought we would gain something, we would do it. So, it would be helpful to me, to the children of Wales, if all of us in the Chamber got behind our reforms, and got behind our front-line staff and our plans to transform children's services in Wales. Now is the time to act, not further reflect.

Mark Isherwood to respond to the debate.

Diolch, Llywydd. Well, Gareth Davies, our colleague, obviously, opened this debate by extending his thoughts and condolences—and I know every Member here shares this—to Logan Mwangi's family and friends and community. Such a tragedy, he said, highlights the need for the Welsh Government to ensure this never happens again, with an independent review to ensure that 'never again means never again.' He said that whereas reviews in England prioritise what went wrong, with clear recommendations to the UK Government to go forward, and there are current reviews in Scotland and Northern Ireland, why is only Wales being left out when children's safety is being put at risk? If reviews don't go ahead, he said, the people of Wales will want to know why the Welsh Government appears to be avoiding accountability once again.

Heledd Fychan quite rightly said it's absolutely essential that we have an independent review of children's social care in Wales, because it's not a party political matter. It's about looking at the system as a whole, where facts and figures speak for themselves. As she said,

'Reviews are positive...not things to be feared...to learn lessons as a whole.'

Altaf Hussain pointed out that the failings with Bridgend social services long predated this individual case, with a number of critical reports showing children going missing or being put at risk of exploitation.

Jane Dodds, speaking with a career in child protection, said she can't see any reason why COVID prevented interventions to save Logan's life. She referred to Care Inspectorate Wales reports—I think she said in Wrexham and Denbighshire—being very hard to interpret, in contrast to equivalent reports from the sister body across the border in England.

The Minister, our Deputy Minister for Social Services, Julie Morgan, despite all of that said that she remains of the view that now is not the time for an independent review, regardless of the overwhelming weight of evidence in support of an independent review. Her statement that you shouldn't just do something because other parts of the UK have had reviews, to which Gareth responded, despite all other Governments across the UK recognising the need for these reviews, often recurrently, perhaps exposes an underlying mindset that is creating barriers to delivery within the Welsh Government on points that should have nothing to do with party politics.

The pandemic has only exacerbated an existing situation, and the safeguarding review into Logan Mwangi's case outlined a number of recommendations aimed at Welsh Government, including that they consider commissioning a pan-Wales review of approaches to undertaking child protection conferences to identify—. They made a series of recommendations I haven't got time to read out. However, the Deputy Minister for social care, Julie Morgan, refused in 2019 to commission a review on the rise in looked-after children in Wales, and her mission to reduce high numbers through setting local authority targets without sound measures underpinning these targets has sadly come to fruition, because we haven't had an independent review to establish the root causes.

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. Therefore, I will defer voting under this item until voting time.

The next item—[Interruption.]

I almost want to make a point of order to Alun Davies. I think the Member may want to reflect on something I said prior to the debate. I think I noticed you walking in after I'd said it, and it was a reflection on some of the points that had been raised last week during Plenary. I think one of them may well have been a point of order by you at that time. It's remarkable, sometimes, the influence you can have on the Llywydd.

Okay, we'll move on to the next debate.

It's the Welsh Conservatives' debate on business rates for self-catering accommodation, and I call on Sam Rowlands to move the motion.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm grateful today to be able to move our motion regarding business rates for self-catering accommodation, in the name of my colleague Darren Millar. And in opening today's debate, I'd first like to clarify that this is not a debate on the rights and wrongs of the 182-day regulations that were announced earlier this year, and, as you know, on this side of the benches, we were against the introduction of these regulations, and in July we brought forward a motion to annul the Non-Domestic Rating (Amendment of Definition of Domestic Property) (Wales) Order 2022, which of course was defeated in this Chamber.

Our debate today is regarding the confusion and unfairness of the implementation of this Order, which, on this side of the benches, we feel are extremely unfair and unjust. What is being asked at the moment is for people to play by rules that aren't yet in place. I can't see this happening in any other situation that I can think of. So, let me explain: as we know, from 1 April 2023, evidence must be provided that a property has been made available to let for at least 252 days, and actually let for at least 182 days, and this is outlined in point (b) of the Government's amendment in front of us today. However, the Valuation Office Agency's assessment will be based on records for the 12 months prior to this date, meaning self-catering businesses will be and have been assessed on the new regulations coming into force in 2023, dating back to 2022. So, the assessment will be based on something that is not currently a requirement. In my view, and in the view of these benches, it simply not fair and reasonable to assess a business on data from when they don't need to meet these new expectations. And I believe that Welsh Government should reflect on the serious concerns expressed by self-catering accommodation providers across Wales regarding the assessment period for determining this eligibility. So, that is the issue that we're debating here today—it's the expectation of businesses to play by rules that aren't currently in place.

In terms of context for this, and why it's important to get this right, and why the current outworking of this Order is so unjust, it's partly due to the incredible importance of this sector to the Welsh economy. As you know, it's something I've mentioned time and time again in this Chamber, and the report produced by the Federation of Small Businesses on tourism this summer shows that tourism accounts for over 12 per cent of employment in Wales—that's one in seven people in Wales being employed by the sector. In addition to this, this report shows that tourism accounts for over 17 per cent of Wales's gross domestic product. It's abundantly clear that this sector is vital for our country and local communities here in Wales.

In the Government's point (a) of their amendment, they state they've consulted widely. However, I find it difficult to fully accept, as the self-catering accommodation sector and leading figures in the tourism sector, in my capacity as chairman of the Senedd cross-party group on tourism, have outlined their sheer confusion, anger and frustration regarding the implementation of this Order in front of us—again, an expectation of those businesses having to play by rules that aren't yet in place.

The final part of today's motion I'd like to focus on today is actually point (c) of the Government's amendment, which states:

'these changes are part of a wider package measures...designed to support vibrant local communities, in which people can afford to live and work all year round.'

On the face of these words, I'm sure Members from across the Chamber can agree with this. But, as we know, the prime reason for these regulations being brought in was to differentiate between second homes and legitimate self-catering holiday accommodation. However, with the criteria being assessed this year, before those rules are in place, before those regulations actually come into force, we will see a skewed set of results, as self-catering accommodation have not been given the proper time to plan, adjust their business plans and ensure their businesses are geared up for this change. So, it will not achieve what the Government are seeking to achieve. In addition to this, as we all know through the Chamber, the way these businesses are set up, and the way that people book their holidays is often far in advance—six, 12, and longer, months in advance. So, by assessing data now, before the regulations come in, self-catering accommodation have not had time to plan, and we'll see miscalculated information. Again, Welsh Government will not be able to achieve their overarching aims.

So, to conclude, Llywydd, it's extremely unfair and unreasonable to assess and judge self-catering accommodation on the old rules when the new rules come into place next April. This could lead to detrimental impacts on the tourism sector and is causing confusion in the sector, a sector that is so important to our economy and to our local communities. So, I look forward to contributions from across the Chamber in this debate, and I particularly look forward to contributions from people trying to explain why they think this injustice is fair. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

I have selected the two amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. I call on the Minister for Economy to formally move amendment 1.

Formally.

Thank you. I now call on Mabon ap Gwynfor to move amendment 2, tabled in the name of Siân Gwenllian. Mabon ap Gwynfor.

Thank you very much, Llywydd, and I move formally amendment 2, in the name of Siân Gwenllian. Could I start by thanking Sam Rowlands for taking the time available to present the motion, and not only to present the motion but also taking some of the time allocated to him to explain the thrust of the motion? It's regrettable, of course, that the short time given to such debates has to be spent explaining what is meant in the wording of the motion, rather than presenting the arguments in favour of the motion.

And I think it's important that I note here my disappointment regarding the wording of the motion and how unclear it is. A good few of us within the Plaid group and outwith the group tried to decipher this motion today and had failed to understand it because of the lack of clarity. Submitting poorly worded motions does our democracy no favours, and, indeed, there is a risk that it will mislead the electorate as those of us from different parties debate different things at cross-purposes.

Will the Member take an intervention?

Of course, Janet.

Thank you. Could you just tell this Chamber whether you've had any approaches from constituents running this kind of business on this matter?

No, I can't answer the question—I'll just wait for the interpretation—I can't answer that question, I'm afraid, Janet, because it wasn't clear what the purpose of the wording of the motion was. I didn't understand the motion, so I can't answer that question.

However, if I have understood the explanation that has been given, then the motion as it has been submitted, and the motion that we'll be voting on, refers to the wrong year. The motion talks about eligibility for qualifying for business rates in 2022-23, this year, rather than 2023-24, which is what it should be referring to.

It's like trying to search for train times on the Transport for Wales app. I don’t know if you've noticed, but, if you input the wrong time, then the app tells you that it's impossible to book a train that's already left the station. Quite right, as well.

Will you take a small intervention?

Go for it.

I'm sure you know the word 'retrospective' and that's the point that my colleague Sam Rowlands is making. The approaches I've had to me by business owners—distraught business owners—is that the year that they are going forward, they're looking back and taking into account business that was affected during COVID. And so it is unjust that they're now—. They technically are in breach of the new guidelines, going forward, but they didn't know at the time, and they had no option, because this Government locked them down so they couldn't actually trade.

Thank you, Janet, for the intervention, but that's not what's written in the motion, and that's not what we'll be voting on. I thank Janet for that, but, for that reason, we should vote against this motion. So, we've submitted our own amendment, and we've discussed the amendment before, so I won't take the time now to discuss the amendment further today, but I hope that you will support the amendment because the motion is so unclear. Thank you.

Janet Finch-Saunders.

I wasn't actually down to speak, but—[Laughter.]

Yes, you are down to speak, but if you don't want to take that time, then—

No, I'll take every opportunity, actually.

So, basically, this is a mess, Minister. I've been approached by so many now. I'm sorry, I can't see where the confusion is on the motion tabled by my colleague, and to be fair, Sam Rowlands eloquently laid out the foundations of what the concern is here. This is unfair, it's unjust, and you cannot retrospectively apply charges for a period of time when those business owners did not have any control over when they could open. The big worry I have is that we're told by the Welsh Government when we write in, 'You need to go to your local authority; they can apply local discretion’, but we go to the local authority and they tell us, 'Oh, I'm sorry, it's the Valuation Office Agency, also the Welsh Government'. As I've raised before in this Chamber, the VOA has a service level agreement with the Welsh Government—or should have—and if you're procuring a service from the VOA, then ultimately you have the right here, Minister, to be able to actually tell the VOA how you want this law applied. So, from my perspective, it is unjust, it's unfair. I would just make sure that—[Interruption.] Yes.

Do you think it is a shame that we have to have this debate today? These things are coming forward because of a poorly thought-out policy brought forward by the Welsh Government just to keep their chums in Plaid Cymru happy.

I tell you what, I will say this. The Christmas season is almost upon us, but what I will say is that, this year, I have been mightily surprised and rather disappointed by the anti-visitor, anti-tourism rhetoric. And I tell you now, I am receiving e-mails from all over Wales, from all your constituents, saying that we're right, and you're wrong.

The Minister for Economy to contribute to the debate—Vaughan Gething.

Thank you, Llywydd. As Members will know, we have debated this matter before. On 27 April, the Minister for Finance and Local Government responded to a debate on taxes and tourism making all of these similar points, and on 6 July, she responded to a motion to annul the legislation in question. It is clear that there is majority support within the Senedd for our change to criteria used to classify self-catering accommodation for local tax purposes. It's also clear that these changes are needed to help tackle the problems presented by the numbers of second homes and holiday lets in some communities. The changes also address a situation where letting a second property for just 10 weeks a year could result in the owner paying no local taxes.

On 2 March, more than 12 months before the changes take practical effect, we announced the outcome of our consultation around local taxes for second homes and self-catering accommodation. Since then, we have set out the Welsh Government's decision and the timing of changes. The legislation came into force on 14 June. The changes take effect from the start of April next year, when the new criteria will be used in assessment of self-catering properties for the non-domestic rating list undertaken by the Valuation Office Agency. On that at least, Janet Finch-Saunders is right. Compliance with the new criteria will not be assessed until after April 2023. An assessment is based on records for the 12 months before the date it relates to. That means that an assessment for a given date in 2023 will consider evidence from the equivalent date in 2022 onwards. This process is not new. In applying the new criteria, the VOA will not remove a self-catering property from the non-domestic rating list prior to the start of April next year.

In preparing the legislation, we took account of all the relevant timing considerations, including the pressing need to address the issues presented by the large number of second homes and holiday lets in some communities. We concluded that the announcement and publication of plans and legislation provided sufficient notice for local authorities, property owners and other stakeholders to prepare for the changes. The legislation was, of course, scrutinised by the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, and its report did not raise any technical scrutiny points.

We've explained the reasons behind our decision to increase the letting criteria. The properties concerned will be classed as non-domestic only if they occupied for businesses purposes for the majority of the year. If they're let on a less frequent basis, they will be liable for council tax. This is about property owners making a fair contribution to the communities where they have homes or run businesses.

Peter Fox to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Llywydd, and thank you to everybody who has contributed today. Can I thank Sam for introducing the debate? Presiding Officer, we've discussed the Welsh Government's changes to non-domestic rates for self-catering accommodation in detail in this Senedd, as the Minister pointed out. We've heard the concerns of businesses about the impact that the new threshold will have on self-catering accommodation providers and their concerns about how this will impact the viability of their businesses. It is very clear that, on this side of the Chamber, there is still disagreement with this overall approach, and neither do many accommodation providers across the country support this.

However, as Sam has pointed out, the crux of today's debate is about the technical details of the new regulations, specifically regarding the assessment period for determining eligibility in qualifying for business rates in 2022-23. As Sam Rowlands pointed out, the implementation of the Order is unjust and unfair, as Janet supported, and I agree. The Welsh Government should reflect on the real concerns expressed by the self-catering providers. The Minister suggests that he has listened to their concerns. Well, the Welsh Government needs to respond and reflect further on those concerns of that industry.

Mabon thanked Sam for explaining the detail of the motion, and, sadly, had to spend most of his contribution trying to decipher what the motion was trying to say, which was a shame. Janet has been approached by so many people and has been championing this situation, as Sam has, and as others have, for many months. Business owners keep sharing their concerns about the unfairness of this process, and their concerns that there is this anti-visitor approach that keeps resonating in this Chamber when we have this debate. As James supported, it is a shame that we're having to have this debate because people aren't being listened to.

Minister, you may be missing the point of this debate today. We hear how you are supporting the industry and supporting the providers, but it doesn't feel that way to them. The fact is that using the same thresholds from 2021-22 as the basis for establishing business use for 2022-23 is unfair. Using a period in which businesses were closed for such long periods of time due to COVID is inherently wrong. Periods of higher demand in the year, as the Welsh Government has used to justify its choices, do not balance out the fact that the demand was suppressed across the year.

As the Federation of Small Businesses has said, as a result of the responses to the pandemic, businesses in different contexts and locations would have needed to react differently to the pandemic at different times, and this on the basis of their own judgement outside the law. For some contexts, it may have been responsible to keep the letting closed, even if they were legally allowed to be open. It is then wrong that during a pandemic a business owner should be actively punished for acting responsibly. As such, we need to rethink the threshold and to use the threshold from previous years so that it is more fair to businesses and better reflects the usual circumstances that accommodation providers operate within. We need to listen to them to better understand what it is they need rather than impose an arbitrary threshold on them.

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. I will therefore defer voting under this item until voting time.

We now reach voting time, and we will move to the vote unless three Members wish for me to ring the bell.

The first vote this afternoon is on item 6, the debate on a Member's legislative proposal for a British Sign Language Bill. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Mark Isherwood. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 38, 12 abstentions, none against, therefore the motion is agreed.

Item 9 is the next vote—the Welsh Conservatives debate on an independent review of children's social care. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. The vote is tied—25 in favour, 25 against, no abstentions, so I will exercise my casting vote against the motion. Therefore the result is 25 in favour, no abstentions, and 26 against.

That means that we will move on to amendment 1. I call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Lesley Griffiths. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 25, 14 abstentions, 11 against, therefore the amendment is agreed.

The final vote under this item is on the motion as amended.

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 23, there are 15 abstentions, 12 against, and therefore the motion as amended is agreed.

The next vote is on item 10, namely the Welsh Conservatives debate on business rate relief for self-catering accommodation. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 14, no abstentions, 36 against, therefore the motion is not agreed.

Amendment 1 will be next, and if amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. I call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Lesley Griffiths. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 26, no abstentions, 24 against, and therefore amendment 1 is agreed and amendment 2 is deselected.

The final vote, therefore, on the motion as amended.

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 35, no abstentions, 15 against, and therefore the motion as amended is agreed.

That's the end of voting for today, but that's not the end of our work, and we'll move on now to the short debate. And the debate today is presented by Mabon ap Gwynfor on the subject 'Atomic dreams: Nuclear power and blind faith in an ageing technology'. I'm intrigued, Mabon. Mabon ap Gwynfor.

Thank you very much, Llywydd, and I've agreed to give some time to Carolyn Thomas, Sam Rowlands and Mike Hedges to contribute to this debate also. Now, there are many reasons given in favour of nuclear energy, and on the surface, they can be convincing, but look a little deeper and you will see that these arguments are very superficial indeed. Some say that nuclear energy is needed to provide for the required energy baseload. That's not true. Baseload in itself is contentious, as it doesn't provide the necessary flexibility in modern times. Energy planners say that there must be flexibility for baseload, and it's possible to ensure this with the right mix of energy—be it solar, wind, hydro, tidal or blue hydrogen.

But for those who are tied to the belief that we need a baseload, then we have the most effective resource here in Wales, which is the tide, with parts of the coast of Wales having some of the biggest tidal ranges in the world. If one is looking for baseload, then we can get this by investing in the natural resources already here, linked to storage technology.

The latest reason given by the Government here for the development of nuclear is for medical nuclear. This is particularly attractive on the face of it—who could argue against medicine that helps with the diagnosis of cancer, or Alzheimer’s, or a host of other diseases? But, in this context again, the arguments are superficial and it doesn't justify the building of a new nuclear power plant, and this is why. A few years ago, there was an acute shortage of the main isotope used for nuclear medicine, namely technetium-99. As the nuclear power plants in the Netherlands and Canada aged, the isotopes became more and more scarce. This is what has brought about the idea of developing a medical nuclear centre here.

But, to safely produce isotopes, you need a research reactor. Producing isotopes from a conventional reactor is extremely dangerous, and a power plant for energy is the priority here. So, between the decommissioning and the small modular reactor plans, there is no room on the site at Trawsfynydd, for example, for a research reactor as well. Never mind that, the shortage of technetium is being resolved. Germany is building an irradiation facility for the production of technetium at München university, and the Jules Horowitz research reactor is being built in France. Indeed, that's an international partnership, and the UK is a key partner. These two research reactors will produce more than enough isotopes for Europe's needs, as well as the UK's.

But even better than that, the excellent work of Dr François Bénard from the University of British Columbia has led to the ability to produce technetium-99 by using cyclotrons—equipment smaller than a small car, without the need for any kind of nuclear reactor, and we can have many of those across the country. I would encourage the Government to work with the University of British Columbia in order to take advantage of that technology.

Of course, there is always radioactive waste attached to nuclear medicine too, but the half-life of technetium is six hours. It can be disposed of safely within weeks. This is very different to the half-life of thorium, which is 80,000 years, or plutonium, which is 28,000 years. And that's the reality—nuclear is dangerous. From the moment it's extracted from the earth to be used as fuel, and then waste, it is fatal and it exists for hundreds of thousands of years. It's a dirty industry ecologically, environmentally, and it is dangerous to all living things.

I've spoken with the Anishinaabe peoples of Ontario, and the Mirarr peoples of Northern Territory of Australia, who have told me about the serious damage that continues to affect their people and their land as a result of uranium mining in their territories. Their communities suffer from high levels of cancer and other health conditions, and from appalling poverty, because the truth is that the nuclear industry is a colonial industry. The industry is stripping lands of dangerous minerals against the will of those communities, and it’s not me saying that, but the Ojibwe, the Shoshone, the Adnyamathanha, the Kazakhs, and others who are saying this. And what about the waste? There are still dangerously high levels of caesium 134 and 137 that continue to be found in Trawsfynydd lake, according to the latest Environment Agency reports—20 years after the nuclear power plant finished producing electricity there. And despite the talk of solutions to the waste, nobody has found any way of dealing with the waste safely.

Some talk about following Finland and burying the waste miles underground, covering it with clay. But that's not a long-term solution. They tried to bury the tailings of the Eldorado company's uranium plants in Ontario, with a type of clay 40 years ago, but they failed, and over 100 megatons of radioactive waste are spread over 1,000 hectares of land there still. The United States used the most up-to-date cement technology on Runit Island, in the Enewetak atoll, at the end of the 1970s in order to bury nuclear waste from the horrific experiments in the Marshall Islands. Forty years later, that cement is already cracking, with radioactive material seeping into the Pacific Ocean. No technology exists to tackle waste that is radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years. Of course, we don't have to talk about Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island or Windscale, but back in 1993, we were within a whisker of adding another name to that list of disastrous nuclear accidents: Wylfa. This was The Times headline in September 1995:

'Nuclear reactor faced meltdown. Wylfa power station in Anglesey.'

And that was after the grab fell into the core of one of the reactors without anyone noticing for hours. We have to count ourselves very lucky indeed.

Now, climate change is the other argument for justifying nuclear. Climate change is happening before our eyes, and we must take urgent steps to reverse the damage done. We have seven years only in order to prevent the world from warming by two degrees over what the temperature was in pre-industrial times. We must see decarbonisation at a broad scale, and quickly too. Now, 'nuclear is the solution', according to Governments, but don't believe the hype. Nuclear cannot play the same role in decarbonisation quickly. Look at Hinkley Point C, for example. This project was announced in 2010. It was licensed two years later in 2012, and work began in 2017. The scheme is already two years behind schedule, and it's unlikely to be commissioned until 2030 at the earliest, costing at least £8 billion more than the original budget, bringing the cost of this one nuclear power plant close to some £30 billion. Even if the work of commissioning the eight nuclear plants promised by Boris Johnson, or the 11 plants promised by Tony Blair were to start tomorrow, then it would be 2033 at best before we would see a single watt of electricity being produced from them.

Indeed, in thinking about the difficulties of Hinkley C, it's worth noting that the University of Aarhus research shows that this is the norm. Ninety seven per cent of the world's nuclear power plant projects run over time, taking 64 per cent more time to build and going 117 per cent over budget. This is without considering the new small modular reactors, which are being given some attention, yet not one has been built and not one has been licensed either. It will be many years before we see this technology in action and, indeed, the work of Stanford University and the University of British Columbia shows that SMRs will be dirtier than conventional ones.

Over the last decade and a half, we've seen billions of pounds of public money flowing into nuclear companies, for them to carry out research based on grand promises, but they haven’t delivered at all, and in the meantime, climate change is accelerating quicker than ever. But we do have mature technology in order to develop renewable energy, by using wind, solar, tidal, and the ability is there to commission these in less than five years. So, why haven't we seen these billions of pounds being invested in mature technology, showing that we are truly serious about tackling climate change? And why is there so much talk about nuclear, with billions being invested in it? Well, this is why: this state has always been at the forefront of developing nuclear weapons. This state was a key partner in the Manhattan project, for example. From the very beginning, the state has hidden these military developments behind civil nuclear developments. Calder Hall was the first nuclear power plant in the UK that was supposed to produce energy that was dirt cheap. The fact is that it was a plutonium production factory. This is now public fact after the United States Government admitted that they used plutonium from Calder Hall for one of its bombs in Nevada and many more.

'Developing a UK SMR also would help Rolls-Royce maintain UK capabilities for the country's military nuclear naval programme'.

Or, these are the words from a Rolls-Royce SMR promotional leaflet:

'One particular application for deployment of the talent developed through the UK SMR programme would be in the ongoing maintenance of the UK’s independent nuclear deterrent.'

Or what about the words of UK Government Ministers when discussing their nuclear policy?

'The government will work with the sector to enable bespoke programmes that support the transitioning between sectors, including civil and defence'.

The state's priority is to have a constant flow of talent going into the nuclear sector in order to be able to maintain its new Dreadnought programme on the banks of the Clyde, and to be able to provide nuclear ships for the AUKUS pact. And, don't forget that Boris Johnson lifted the cap on the number of nuclear weapons here, increasing from 160 to 240. The military budget is not big enough to achieve this, so when agreeing a high strike price for energy from nuclear power stations, billions of pounds of our money, as electricity consumers, will go indirectly to pay for maintaining the military nuclear sector.

Yesterday, we celebrated 40 years of a nuclear-free Wales. Let's stop being part of the Westminster Government's intention to maintain and produce even more destructive nuclear weapons. Let us make a clear statement that Wales will continue to be a nuclear-free Wales, for the good of this nation and for the peace of the people of the world for today and in the future.

Thank you, Mabon, for giving me a minute of your time for this important debate. Making our energy systems sustainable is one of the challenges of our time. Like the climate crisis, it's a challenge that reaches beyond our borders, therefore finding a solution must be an international task. Nuclear is both controversial and potentially dangerous, and it splits opinion. We have to be honest with ourselves about the world in which we live, one too often filled with division, violence and war. As we have seen this year in Ukraine, nuclear power plants are not intended for conflict zones, but we can never be confident that they won't become part of one.

Decades ago, two of the predominant reasons for cautious investment in UK technology were the time and costs associated with its development, and today, those exact same arguments are being made to stifle investment in climate-friendly renewable technologies of the future, such as green hydrogen and tidal. Instead of repeating the mistakes of the past, it's time to work together globally to create a truly green and renewable future. Thank you.

Can I thank Mabon ap Gwynfor for giving me a minute of his time here today? I appreciate that I may be on a different page to Mabon, who made the points that have been raised here, but I'm genuinely interested in listening and understanding some of the perspectives of others' points of view around nuclear energy. I did note that there was a fairly quick acknowledgment at the start of your contribution in relation to baseload, but I do think that that's a fundamental issue that we do need to get our heads around because there's a lot of good work around renewables, but the only one of the renewable technologies that can provide that baseload is tidal, and we're not seeing that progress at the rate that it should progress at the moment. There's good stuff around windfarms and some good stuff around solar technology as well, but those, as we know, are not reliable in terms of ensuring we have a consistent flow of electricity and energy into our grid. And we've seen this in Germany, haven't we, where they're often lauded for moving away from nuclear and towards renewables. Renewables are only still contributing 49 per cent of their energy in Germany and, actually, a third of their energy is still produced by coal-fired powered power stations, and that's not a position we want to be in in terms of ensuring that baseload is there. So, I would argue that nuclear is proven and deliverable and delivers a baseload that we can rely on here in Wales.

A second point—. I appreciate it's only a minute; it's a very short time, isn't it? But there is an urgency as well to move towards a carbon-neutral creation of electricity and an urgency to move away from reliance on states like Russia in terms of supplying gas. And again I would argue that nuclear enables us to do that in a way that is faster than some other technologies, to be affordable, carbon free and reliable in the future. So, I appreciate the one minute and I appreciate your time. Thank you.

Can I also thank Mabon for giving me a minute of this debate and for what he said previously? We have, since Calder Hall in 1956, gone through a large number of nuclear-reactor types—Magnox, pressurised water reactor, advanced gas-cooled reactors, and now the generation 3 plus nuclear reactor proposed at Sizewell C. When technologies develop, costs should reduce. They should reduce rapidly. That has not been the case with nuclear. What has characterised nuclear power is problems—cost overruns in construction, maintenance and malfunction issues more costly than expected, cost of dealing with nuclear waste material, finding storage for the nuclear waste material. This is reminiscent of the other 1960s and 1970s future technology—which those people old enough will remember—the hovercraft. Since then, the amount of fuel they take and the maintenance costs have meant it is no longer feasible to use them. And now, like the hovercraft, it is time to say 'no' to nuclear power and 'yes' to renewables.

I call on the Minister for Economy to reply to the debate. Vaughan Gething.

Thank you to Mabon ap Gwynfor for bringing this debate and for the other contributions. I welcome the debate as an opportunity to both note the importance of the nuclear sector in Wales, but also to recognise, from my point of view, the contribution the sector makes in sustaining local economies, developing communities and helping to create jobs. I appreciate I have a different perspective from Mabon ap Gwynfor on this point.

I'd like to first develop the point about the assertion that there's blind faith in supporting nuclear technology. That suggests that people who support another generation of nuclear power or exploitation ignore the technology's limitations and plain and obvious challenges, and are intent on supporting nuclear-power generation despite the concerns about security, safety and waste management. Nothing could be further from the truth. Supporters of nuclear power today have to be pragmatists and to conclude whether we believe net zero can be achieved or not with nuclear as part of the wider energy mix. I think it is part of the wider energy mix that is required. That's despite the fact that concerns do remain about security, safety and waste management, and those would have to be addressed and should be addressed in an open and transparent manner.

I understand the implication of ageing technology to be that, because we've been generating electricity from nuclear sources for about 60 years, nuclear is a technology of yesterday. Well, if it was the length of time of the technology, we may no longer support wind or hydro power, because, actually, from the earlier generations of those technologies, we're seeing those advance and develop. Generating electricity from wind power is a relatively recent innovation and demonstrates that technological advancement is not necessarily limited to new technologies. Nuclear technology itself is constantly evolving, and far from being the ageing technology of yesterday, I still think—as indeed do a number of other experts, different to the ones that Mabon has quoted—that it's a technology for our journey to tomorrow, especially when progress in the nuclear fusion area is taken into consideration. I think that proponents of small modular reactors would say it's a mature technology that you understand and, actually, SMRs, which I'll talk about later on, don't require the sort of challenges of significant investment that larger scale nuclear power does.

Now, nuclear fusion, if we can develop it, offers substantial generation of commercial quantities in the future with far fewer issues around safety and waste management than those associated with fission. However, there is still work to be done to test fusion deployment, and in the meantime fission continues to offer a tried and tested means of generating high-volume, low-carbon and always-on baseload electricity.

Now, on our net-zero agenda, net zero and energy security are focused on deploying nuclear and renewables together to sustain our low-carbon energy transition, and we all accept the reality that more work is needed to decarbonise power supply in Wales and across the UK, and we have seen that colleagues in Germany are stuck in a position where they're still relying on coal power, which I think is a significant and immediate threat for the future of the planet. Some of the key reasons why this Government continues to support nuclear deployment are that it is a low-carbon energy source. It is a powerful energy source, and I believe it is essential for the low-carbon transition. It's constant and controllable energy. It provides continuous 24/7 electricity and can be adapted to variations in electricity demand. Even the reliable patterns of tidal power don't provide energy that is on all the time, and we still need to generate much greater technology in terms of storage of tidal power, which I'm keen that we continue to do.

It's competitive in the sense that nuclear power is one of the least expensive sources in generation. In France, about 70 per cent of its electricity is generated from nuclear. The challenge is the build costs and the decommissioning costs. And I do believe it's energy that will help us to get to the future that we want. We've now got 8 billion people living on the planet, and we're going to need to find alternative ways to help us to generate enough power for us all to survive with the quality and the standard of living that we expect, and others, whilst achieving carbon neutrality. I appreciate what Mabon's had to say, but I do think there is a real case that this Government accepts that we're unlikely to be able to do that without further nuclear power investment. It's also recognised, in that sense, by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the International Energy Agency, when they look at renewable energies and nuclear power, that there is a requirement for some nuclear power baseload to get to a more fully formed, wholly renewable future.

Wylfa and Trawsfynydd in Wales have supported around 800 to 900 long-term and well-paid jobs for 50 plus years, as well as several hundred more in the local supply chain, and of course these are communities where there are not other opportunities in more built-up areas of larger populations. And there's something here about making sure there are economic opportunities in parts of Wales that don't have very large population centres. The Welsh Government believes that regions and local communities hosting nuclear infrastructure projects should secure economic benefits beyond the immediate on-site jobs. That's part of the reason we established Cwmni Egino in 2021, to pursue Trawsfynydd-related opportunities. Those include the ongoing work around decommissioning that Mabon ap Gwynfor has mentioned previously. Now, those jobs continue to be supported, and I'm interested in how we'll gain more from the supply chain, and Trawsfynydd has already become a de facto centre for decommissioning excellence across the Magnox estate. It has long been the lead and learning centre on how to deal with complex decommissioning issues—for example, the treatment of contaminated resins and fuel element debris. It's also the proposed first site for innovative, continuous decommissioning. That would see the complete demolition and removal of reactor buildings as part of the ongoing decommissioning, rather than in 60 years following a care and maintenance period and reactor cool-down.

Thank you, Minister, and thank you, everyone. That brings today's proceedings to a close.